Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Railways; And the same was read the First Time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

ELECTION EXPENSES

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return of the expenses of each candidate at the General Election of June 1987 in the United Kingdom as transmitted to the returning officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act 1983, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the description of each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the numbers of electors, the number of postal votes and the number of rejected ballot papers.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Rating Reform

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 so as to leave out section 13(1)(d) which requires that the register shall specify, in relation to each natural person registered in the register, his date of birth.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): No, Sir. Dates of birth are to be included in the community charges register in order to assist registration officers in clearly establishing the community charge liability of individuals.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister explain why there is to be one law for Scotland and another for England and Wales? Will he please explain why in Scotland there is to be a national identity number consisting of the name and date of birth, while in England that will not be required? Finally, what will he say to the people of Scotland when, in anger at such distinctive legislation being imposed on them, they send back their registration forms because they do not understand why such an imposition should be placed on them?

Mr. Lang: The use of dates of birth does not lead to a national registration process of any kind, although it may be used by individual local authorities to help identify individuals. The hon. Lady spoke about differences between Scotland and England. As they are usually to Scotland's advantage, I should have thought that the hon. Lady would be glad of them.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is running dead scared about community charges in Scotland and that it is grossly exaggerating the projected figures of what the charge will be in a year's time? Does he accept that in, for instance, Dumfries and Galloway the projected figure is about £210, including regional, district and water charges, while the Labour party there is talking about a figure of over £300?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules apply to ordinary questions as to Prime Minister's questions. There must be ministerial responsibility for the question asked.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the figures published yesterday will make it clear that the opportunity lies with individual authorities to decide the level of charge in their area.

Mr. Canavan: Would it not be fairer to scrap the entire Act, bearing in mind the recent MORI poll findings that 75 per cent. of Scots are opposed to the poll tax, including 40 per cent. of Tory supporters, and that 42 per cent. of Scots are saying that they will not pay the poll tax, including 14 per cent. of Tory supporters? What will these percentages have to rise to before the Minister realises that the Government had better scrap the poll tax, which is threatened by a Government who were rejected by 76 per cent. of Scots in the last election?

Mr. Lang: I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman's comments if his party had come forward with


any alternative proposal on how to raise local government finance. He mentioned opinion polls. If he conducted an opinion poll among those who pay domestic rates he would find very many of them looking forward to the abolition of domestic rates that will take place in Scotland on 1 April next year.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister recognise that there is a conflict, in that in Scotland education grants will be financed from this poll tax, while in Northern Ireland education grants are financed from the rates? Therefore, since very many Northern Ireland students attend universities in Scotland they will be penalised because they will have to contribute twice towards their education grants — once through the rates that they pay in Northern Ireland, and secondly through the poll tax that will be imposed on them in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the situation in Northern Ireland. No doubt he will pursue the matter through the appropriate channels. However, his comments do not have much to do with the appearance of dates of birth on the register in Scotland.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I am sure my hon. Friend will be delighted to know that my 78-year-old widowed mother is looking forward to the introduction of the community charge. At the moment she pays £790 for a little semidetached cottage. If she lived in my constituency she would pay £300, and under the poll tax the amount payable in my constituency would be £190. There is no excuse for not welcoming the community charge and we look forward to it ever so much.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend's comments are true and apply to very many people. Over 90 per cent. of single pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the introduction of the community charge.

Mr. Maxton: As the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments says that one of the parts of the statutory instrument that the Government have laid before it is illegal and against the Act, and as the poll tax was rejected by the Scottish people at the last general election and has been rejected by them in every opinion poll since then by enormous amounts, including by most Tory supporters, why on earth do the Government continue to press ahead with this absurd, unfair, unwanted and unworkable tax?

Mr. Lang: The comments of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments refer to minor and technical matters and in no way undermine the validity of the regulations. As to the introduction of the community charge, we are determined to achieve greater accountability in local government so that the interests of residents can be more fully protected.

Medical Operations (Postponements)

Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he collected information concerning the number of operations postponed on 24 February.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): On 25 and 26 February my Department collected health boards' preliminary estimates of operations postponed because of industrial action on 24 February.

On 1 and 2 March the Department collected a detailed breakdown of the figures so that my hon. Friend could reply to the hon. Gentleman's written question for 3 March.

Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am also grateful for the fact that he has taken the responsibility for it and not passed it down to one of his junior Ministers. I am impressed by his ability to collect these figures and by the fact that he has made them public so rapidly. Why will he not do the same for the figures for leukaemia? Why is he keeping those figures from the research workers at the University of Newcastle, who are looking into the geographic distribution of leukaemia in Scotland? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman involved in yet another cover-up?

Mr. Rifkind: There is no cover-up and the hon. Gentleman, as usual, has his facts wrong. He might be interested to know that the latest figures for operations cancelled because of industrial action, which is what his question relates to—[Interruption.] No, his question is about the number of operations postponed on 24 February, which was the day of industrial action —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be able to hear the answer.

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) does not want an answer to the question that is on the Order Paper, but what is of primary concern at present is that 2,600 operations have been cancelled in Scotland because of industrial action. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about operations in Scotland he might use his substantial influence in the National Health Service to persuade those taking industrial action to put the interests of their patients first.

Mr. Allan Stewart: With regard to the action on 24 February, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Labour Members were concerned about resources in the Health Service they would support competitive tendering, which has saved £100 million for the Health Service in England and Wales, rather than acting like a bunch of tape recorders for COHSE and NUPE?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend, in his usual eloquent fashion, has made a pungent point. Labour Members who say that they are concerned about the welfare of patients might like to reflect on the fact that, because of the industrial action that they supported, more than 80,000 meals to patients have been affected, to the detriment of those patients, and more than 40,000 disposable sheets have had to be used. If that is what Opposition Members regard as being action that should be supported, it shows that their real concern is certainly not for the welfare of patients.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State explain why it appears to be straightforward to collect statistics for one specific day, but impossible for the Government to collect centrally the misery league of people who are waiting for straightforward operations? Is he aware that on many occasions his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said that the Government do not collect centrally figures for cataract operations or joint replacement operations, but such operations are a measure


of the effectiveness of the Health Service in Scotland. When can we have those statistics and when will we reduce the waiting lists?

Mr. Rifkind: A major initiative is under way to try to improve the information that is available to us and the general public with regard to the performance of the Health Service. It is in everyone's interest that as much information as possible is available so that we can judge the way in which these massive amounts of resources are used and identify ways in which they can be used more effectively.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. and learned Friend is working out the statistics on operations cancelled, will he bear in mind that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I are here in the House largely due to the success of operations carried out at Nine Wells hospital and that the privileges that we enjoyed have been denied to others in the narrow interests of trade unions?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. I pay tribute to the Royal College of Nursing, which, despite any concern that it may have about the situation in the National Health Service, has always made it clear that those who have a real professional interest in the Health Service would never use patients as a means of bringing pressure to bear in a controversy of this kind.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of staffed beds in Scotland has fallen by more than 5 per cent. since 1979? What has been the effect of that on waiting lists? Is he further aware that in the next financial year funding of the NHS in real terms will fall by 1·2 per cent.? What effect will that have on waiting lists? Is not all this covering fire in relation to the day of action on 24 February intended to cover up the scandalous situation created by his policies?

Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary. First, I emphasise that more patients have been treated in Scotland in recent years than was possible in the past. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about waiting lists, he will be interested to know that the additional resources announced by the Government some months ago have been used to reduce waiting lists in Scotland. The main effect of the industrial action that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends support will be to lengthen waiting lists. The hon. Gentleman should identify his priorities and support Government policies directed towards those ends.

Home Confinements

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards home confinements; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): rose—

Hon. Members: Where is Maclennan?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is always helpful if hon. Members alert the Chair to the fact that they cannot be present, as the hon. Member did today.

Mr. Forsyth: It is our policy to encourage hospital deliveries, but where a woman expresses a preference for home confinement it is the responsibility of the health

board to arrange for a midwife to attend her and to make every effort to ensure that services are available for that confinement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the work carried out by Nottingham university and supported by the World Health Organisation, showing that home confinements and confinements in general practitioner units are relatively safer than confinements in consultant hospitals? Does that not stand rather strangely with the proposals of Grampian health board to close the small rural units for which there is very strong support, and which have been shown to be safe?

Mr. Forsyth: I am slightly puzzled by the logic of my right hon. Friend's question. Home confinements would clearly be encouraged if the rural facilities were not there, as those facilities offer an alternative to home confinement. About 1 per cent. of deliveries take place at home, but in some 5 per cent. of cases women in labour need rapid intervention to save mother and baby. Professional advice and opinion is that hospital deliveries involve less risk and provide specialist assistance if complications occur.

Dr. Moonie: The Minister is famous for his open mind. Will he cast his mind across the English Channel towards Holland, which has had an effective home confinement system for many years? Will he examine the possibility of introducing a proper, effective and fully funded home confinement system in Scotland for the growing number of women who want it?

Mr. Forsyth: So far as I am aware, there is no problem in providing home confinement for women who wish it. They are able to obtain the services of a general practitioner or a midwife, but I am not aware of any considerable demand for this. As I have said, only 1 per cent. of deliveries take place in that way.

Local Authority Staffing

Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of full-time equivalent staff employed by Scottish local authorities as at 31 March 1979, 1984, 1985 and 1987; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The number of full-time equivalent staff employed by Scottish local authorities as at 31 March 1979, 1984, 1985 and 1987 was 253,000, 251,600, 251,400 and 247,000 respectively.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures will be something of a disappointment to us, as over the past eight years efficiency savings in the Scottish Office have resulted in a 20 per cent. decrease in the number of people employed, whereas in many local authorities in Scotland — especially those that are Labour-controlled—there have been significant increases in the numbers employed? Is my hon. Friend aware that in Dundee the local authority ha .s increased the number of people it employs by 10 per cent. in the past four years? Will he recommend that if that authority is interested in achieving economies it could take some advice from the Transport and General Workers Union, which knows very well how to lose jobs?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are very much in favour of the creation of jobs in the wealth-producing


sector of the economy. My hon. Friend is right in suggesting that the Scottish Office figures have been reduced by 19 per cent. since 1979. However, in relation to local authorities, if one takes out of consideration the creation of the local bus companies, which involved a large transfer of staff last year, the figure is a decrease of only 0·3 per cent. The overall staffing per head in Scotland is approximately 15 per cent. higher than in England and Wales.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister take time today to congratulate Edinburgh City district council on its excellent work, and especially the former Conservative candidate for the Marchmont ward in my Edinburgh, South constituency, who today has resigned from the Conservative party because he said that £2 billion —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—according to page 3 of The Scotsman, has been given by the Chancellor to the super-rich at the expense of the Health Service, for which he works? Will the Minister congratulate that candidate for standing up for the Health Service, the Royal Edinburgh hospital and for the Bruntsfield hospital, which his hon. Friend seeks to close? Will he congratulate him today?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I personally congratulated a councillor who was a Labour councillor in Dundee and who has just become a Conservative—

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Name him.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will send the hon. Gentleman a photograph—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of a photograph of us together—[Interruption.] Local authorities should look carefully at their staffing levels to produce the best value for money for the ratepayers. We strongly support competitive tendering in that connection, and at present Edinburgh is opposing that.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: On the question of Minister's policies for reducing local government staff, is he aware that the Government's policies are producing the opposite effect, and for all the wrong reasons? Angus district council is a cost-effective and efficient council, but has had to take on extra staff purely to meet the bureaucracy and red tape of the Government's policies regarding council house sales, housing benefit, and now the poll tax? Will the Government get off the back of local government and allow elected councillors and officials to provide the staffing levels that are suitable for the needs of their people, rather than there being a central Government diktat?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I very much hope that local authorities will look closely at their manpower policies. We strongly believe that in many cases competitive tendering could result in much better value for the ratepayers, which could have an effect on the levels of manpower. However, if contracting-out takes place, it will mean increased employment in the private sector.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend notice that there is a correlation between Labour authorities such as Edinburgh, which has increased its staffing totally unnecessarily, and the predicted amounts of the

community charge to be paid, and that the Labour party is so against the community charge because the individual voter will be sent a bill for its extravagance?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The community charge will undoubtedly increase accountability. That is one of the reasons why it is so strongly opposed by Opposition Members.

Mr. Home Robertson: If the Government are so concerned about the administrative costs of local authorities, why on earth are they imposing the monstrous inefficiency of the poll tax on local government in Scotland? As we understand that the Prime Minister has at last noticed that Britain has become the midden of Europe, can we expect the Government to start encouraging Scottish local authorities to employ more manual staff to keep Scotland tidy? Have the Government yet grasped the fact that what people in Scotland want is job creation, better local services and no part in the fundamentally corrupt process of privatisation?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The policy of competitive tendering is directed, not at the creation of more jobs, but at getting value for money for the ratepayers, eventually the community charge payers. The reason why the community charge is being introduced is to bring about more accountability.

Cheese Manufacture

Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Milk Marketing Board relative to the provision of adequate supplies of milk for cheese manufacture in southwest Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Since last August my noble Friend the Minister of State has been in regular contact with the board over the problems of the cheese makers in the south-west of Scotland. The most recent of those discussions was on 9 March.

Sir Hector Monro: Can my hon. Friend tell me why it has taken more than nine months, despite ministerial pressure, to get the English and Scottish boards to come together and decide how to provide sufficient milk in the south-west of Scotland to enable cheese to be made for immediate sale? Is it not intolerable that we should drag our feet for that length of time?

Mr. Forsyth: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter, but I understand that some milk is now being delivered from England to Scotland for cheese manufacture and that negotiations between the Scottish and English boards to secure the supply of milk for manufacture in Scotland are now in their final stages.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister not realise that when my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and I saw the Minister of State as long ago as November he promised immediate action, but there has been no action apart from the milk coming from England? We do not want more milk from England. We want more quotas to be allocated to Scottish farms because a great many jobs are in jeopardy. If we keep on taking the milk from England, we shall have to rename Scottish Cheddar Anglo-Scottish Cheddar.

Mr. Forsyth: The name "Scottish Cheddar" relates to its place of manufacture, not to the milk that goes into it. When the hon. Gentleman says that we do not want milk from England, he speaks for himself alone, and certainly not for the interests of the producers or the manufacturers.

Dr. Godman: I sincerely hope that the Scottish Milk Marketing Board will not issue redundancy notices to members of its work force in the near future because of these disastrous shortages in supply. Surely what is needed to meet the shortages is the creation of a quota reserve in each of the European Community countries and, failing that, the restoration, on a non-intervention basis, of at least some of the cuts in the milk supply.

Mr. Forsyth: It was always recognised that the advent of quotas would result in some rationalisation of the milk product sector, but it is not true to say that the shortfall in milk supplies is of such an order as to bring about the demise of the Scottish Cheddar industry. The hon. Gentleman suggested creating a reserve, but that could be done only by taking from the quotas that have been allocated, including those that have been allocated to the south-west of Scotland.

Rating Reform

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many petitions he has received from individuals or groups in Scotland protesting about the introduction of the poll tax or community charge; and what response he intends to make to them.

Mr. McTaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the implementation of the poll tax.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received 970 representations, including a number of petitions, since the enactment of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister tell the House how he can justify ignoring the wishes of hundreds of thousands of Scottish people and treating with contempt the opinion of 75 per cent. of the Scottish population? Does he not realise that, far from needing expensive glossy booklets issued by him which try to dispel opposition to the poll tax, the people of Scotland understand only too well what that iniquitous tax means? For them it is unnecessary, unworkable and, like this Government, unwanted in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: Far from being glossy, expensive and misleading, the information guide issued by the Scottish Office on the community charge costs less than the price of a second-class stamp per copy. It was badly needed to counter the misleading propaganda being put about by other parties, including, for example, those who suggest as a fact that
The only way to avoid paying is to give up your right to vote!
That was in a leaflet bearing the imprint of the Stop It campaign and the Morning Star.

Mr. McTaggart: Will the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State come to Glasgow this Saturday, where there is yet another petition against the poll tax? They will then see for themselves the opposition of ordinary people to this tax and hear for themselves their demands for it to be scrapped.

Mr. Lang: What would be more interesting would be to hear the hon. Gentleman putting forward the facts about the community charge.

Mr. Oppenheim: What does my hon. Friend think about those who claim to care about local services, but who are, none the less, urging people to avoid contributing to those local services by not paying the community charge or even not registering for that charge?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that fact. Indeed, the Labour party is in considerable disarray as to its reaction to the community charge. I hope that those who encourage breaking the law will be willing to pay for those who are fined as a result.

Mrs. Ray Michie: If visiting forces are to be exempt from paying the poll tax in Scotland, can the Minister give an assurance that local authorities, such as my authority of Argyll and Bute, where he is aware that many overseas service men are based, will not lose much vital income? If that is the case, can he give us any details as to how arrangements will proceed?

Mr. Lang: The position of members of the armed services is still under consideration. I assure the hon. Lady that I shall pass her comments to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Bill Walker: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from the Transport and General Workers Union, as it seems to he more concerned with preventing things happening, including jobs in Scotland arid in Dundee—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must—[Interruption.] Order. I think that there is a later question appropriate to that matter.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is to do with the community charge. As a former active member of the TGWU, I am concerned about the activities of that union and what it is up to. Would my hon. Friend care to comment?

Mr. Lang: I assure my hon. Friend that those members of trade unions who are also local authority employees are getting on with the implementation of the machinery for the collection of the community charge.

Mr. Douglas: Would the Minister care to tell the House what effect his and other Ministers' representations have had on the Scottish people in terms of propaganda about poll tax? Does he believe that support for the poll tax in Scotland has grown, or diminished?

Mr. Lang: I am not answerable for propaganda, since the Government have not put out any. What we have put out is a factual, step-by-step guide to help the public to understand the various processes for the implementation of the community charge. The registration process gets under way on 1 April, by which time the booklet will have been distributed to every household in Scotland.

Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend no doubt noted that, at the Scottish Labour party conference, there were arguments about how the community charge would be avoided, either overtly or by deliberate breach of the law. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has received no alternative proposals from the Labour party to replace the community charge?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a deafening silence from the Labour party on this


as on so many other issues. We still wait, even at this late hour, for the Labour party to say whether it remains committed to the domestic rating system or whether it can offer a more constructive way of producing a fairer and more accountable system of paying for local government.

STUC (Discussions)

Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had recently with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Rifkind: I have had no recent requests from the Scottish Trades Union Congress for discussions on the Scottish economy. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and local government has, however, accepted an invitation to attend the STUC's annual congress next month. I met STUC representatives yesterday to discuss Ford.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is some concern in Scotland about the role that he is playing in furthering the Scottish economy? Why does he seem continually to denigrate the situation in Dundee? Why is it that every time he appears on the media he is destructive rather than constructive? Can he tell the House whether he was in touch with Ford yesterday, or whether he has been in touch with Ford today? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish people do not trust him because of the "sit on your hands, do nothing" attitude that he adopted in relation to the proposed murder of the Scottish deep mining industry, which will result in the loss of 10,000 jobs?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that, following my comments, the SSEB and British Coal have resumed negotiations on deep mining. The prospects for progress are indeed more encouraging than they seemed to be. I must confess that I find myself both amazed at and interested in the hon. Gentleman's early remarks. Having taken part in the negotiations that led to Ford deciding to go to Dundee in the first place, I do not need any lectures from him about my interest in this matter.

Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it likely that the senior management of Ford in America will to change its mind about its investment in my home town of Dundee on a vote of 11 to 10 by the TUC? Which does he find more surprising: the intransigence of the TUC, or the shameful silence of the eight transport union-sponsored Labour Members?

Mr. Rifkind: The failure of Labour Members who are sponsored by the TGWU to make their position known is doing a great disservice to the interests of the Scottish economy. As the House may be aware, today the TUC ratified by a significantly larger majority the position taken by one of its committees recently. That is an important step in the right direction. However, it is unfortunate that the TGWU appears to maintain its opposition to that proposal in the vote that took place today. It is important that we should obtain some clarification from the TGWU as to whether in the light of today's vote, it now accepts the policy of the TUC.

Mr. McAllion: I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State at least leave a little chink of light open by saying that he might respond to the pleas made to him to intervene in

support of the workers and the unemployed in Dundee. Is he aware that yesterday TGWU shop stewards at the Dagenham plant, which is widely regarded as the most militant in the Ford network in Britain, decided not to black any components if, and only if, the plant were located in Dundee? —[Interruption.] Given that the editorial in Scotland's leading national newspaper today pleaded with the Secretary of State to drop everything and go with Gavin Laird to plead with Ford, will he now respond to that plea and to the pleas of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: Any evidence of real contact with the late 20th century by any elements in the TGWU is to be welcomed, and if Mr. Todd can repeat the views that we have been told are the views of the Dagenham members, that, too, would make an important contribution. Naturally, having been in part responsible for the original decision by Ford to come to Dundee, I have at least as much interest as the hon. Gentleman in doing anything within my power to ensure that the project still finds its way to Dundee. [Interruption.] Opposition Members will appreciate that I must use my best judgment about whether and in what way Ford could be asked to reconsider its decision. The TUC, somewhat belatedly, has now endorsed the agreement originally reached with Ford, and that is to be welcomed. On our present knowledge the TGWU, which is the main union which all along has been an obstacle to progress, has still not, so far as we are aware, changed its position in one significant way. If that is going to be altered, we must wait and hear what its view is. It is, indeed, necessary to find out whether Mr. Todd and his colleagues are now prepared to endorse the views of the TUC, the Government and of all who have spoken on this matter. I may say to hon. Gentlemen that if—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important matter.

Mr. Rifkind: If Opposition Members are concerned about the matter, as I am sure they are, one contribution that could be made from the Opposition Benches would be for the Leader of the Opposition to give his support to the view that has now been endorsed by the TUC and by the Government.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is one of the most miserable moments in trade union and Labour party history, in that we have lost 1,000 jobs in Scotland through a petty squabble? Will he say whether he has had any word from the Transport and General Workers Union that it is anxious to come to see him today to withdraw total opposition to its policy of the last week?

Mr. Rifkind: I have had no such notification. If the TUC and trade unions generally had, some weeks ago, adopted the position which they are reported as having adopted today, Ford would never have made the decision that was announced last Friday. We are now involved in an exercise to try to reverse the damage, which was totally unnecessary, and resulted solely from the most extraordinarily primitive attitudes still to be found in certain sections of the trade union movement.

Mr. Dewar: Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister quoted with great approval Mr. Gavin Laird of the AEU. Did the Secretary of State see Mr. Laird on the national news today saying that what happened this morning was a major breakthrough and that he was confident that the


agreement would hold? Is it not the height of irresponsibility for a Government Minister to give the impression that he does not believe that that is the position? It would be tantamount to encouraging the Ford Motor company to lock and bar the door, which we want to see open. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again that this is a very important matter.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to welcome unreservedly the TUC's decision to endorse the Ford/AEU agreement? As the company said as recently as last week that the key condition was the single union deal, with the provision that the new plant would be independent of current national agreements—this morning's vote seems to give exactly that—is it not important that he clarifies his position? He has talked about clarification. Should he not make it clear that he will join me and everyone else in Scotland in urging the company in the changed circumstances to reconsider and reinstate the project? Can he give an assurance that he is making it clear to the company that in the Government's view the essential conditions have been met and the plant should now be built?

Mr. Rifkind: First of all, I have given more public support to Gavin Laird than either the hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly, I have already welcomed the decision taken by the TUC today and only wish that it had been taken some time in the last five months. Thirdly, I am saddened that even today the hon. Gentleman has not felt able to add his weight to representations to Mr. Ron Todd and the Transport and General Workers Union to withdraw their opposition and give full support to the TUC. The deafening silence of the Labour party and its refusal to make one iota of criticism of the position taken by the Transport and General Workers Union is a total and unqualified disgrace and refutes any assertion it makes to have the interests of the Scottish economy at heart.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 9, Mr. Steel.

Mr. Harry Ewing: That is an absolute scandal. It is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Steel: I had intended to ask a supplementary question on Question No. 8.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I have called Question No. 9.

South of Scotland Electricity Board

Mr. Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board; and what matters were discussed.

Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Rifkind: I last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on 19 March on the occasion of an informal dinner in Edinburgh.

Mr. Steel: I hope that the Secretary of State will pay a deserved tribute to the Scottish TUC for the efforts that it has made to bring its brethren south of the border into line on this issue—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now on Question No. 9.

Mr. Steel: That was by way of parenthesis, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Secretary of State should not be let off the hook on this.
On Question No. 9, will the Secretary of State give the House the assurances that have been sought several times on the privatisation proposals: first, that the new South of Scotland company cannot be taken over by a foreign company; and, secondly, that the legislation will provide for social obligations to rural areas analogous with those existing in the north of Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: The future ownership and acquisition of shares in the industry is still being considered. Information will be given to the House as soon as we reach conclusions on the matter.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the social clause was never applied in the south of Scotland. It has been a feature of the legislation governing the work of the hydro board, the most important aspect of which has always been perceived to be the installation of electricity for the rural communities in the remote islands and the maintenance of common tariffs throughout the area. In the White Paper the Government said that they remained committed to those objectives.

Dr. Reid: Just as the Secretary of State is prepared., apparently, to do nothing to protect jobs in Dundee—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me to finish the sentence, they might realise that there is some sense in it.
Just as the Minister is prepared to do nothing to protect jobs in Dundee, is it not true that he did nothing to protect jobs in the coal industry? Did he not inadvertently mislead the House earlier today when he implied that the current negotiations were a result of his intervention? Is he aware that this morning the chairman of the SSEB was interviewed by the Select Committee on Energy and was explicitly asked, "Has the Secretary of State for Scotland ever discussed with you the social costs and consequences of the loss of the contract to the coal board?" He answered, "No."
Will the Secretary of State confirm that astounding and shocking answer, and will he explain to the House and the people of Scotland what sort of Secretary of State sits to one side doing nothing when 10,000 jobs in the Scottish coal industry are under threat?

Mr. Rifkind: On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I said last week that I would be perfectly prepared to make representations to Ford if and when I believed that such representations would be appropriate — [HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] — and would have some prospect of producting the desired result. I was involved in the negotiations to bring Ford to Dundee, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is my clear intention and objective.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am well aware that the Ford issue is of major importance to the House—[Interruption.]—but we must stick to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Rifkind: I was responding to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.
On the second part of his question, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that my responsibility is to Scottish industry as a whole and to the jobs that are found in Scottish industry as a whole. Coming from the constituency that he does, the hon. Gentleman should know more clearly than most the implications for the steel industry in Scotland if


electricity tariffs are higher than they need to be—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Tiny."] They are not tiny. Ravenscraig is the single largest purchaser of electricity from the SSEB, and if the hon. Gentleman does not take account of that fact he is doing a disservice to his constituents.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it crystal clear to the chairman of the SSEB that his job is to produce electricity as cheaply as possible for his consumers? Is it not the ultimate hypocrisy for an hon. Member representing a constituency in Lanarkshire —the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—to urge on the SSEB policies which might make Ravenscraig uncompetitive?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The House should bear in mind that the chairman of the SSEB has said that he wants to reach a satisfactory conclusion that will enable him to continue purchasing coal from British Coal. In the discussions that have taken place in the past few days both sides have reported progress, so there is a prospect of some satisfactory agreement being reached. That should be welcomed by the House.

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has blatantly failed to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Has he at any time discussed with the chairman of the SSEB the social costs or consequences of the massive loss of jobs that is possible in the deep mining industry as a result of current policies?

Mr. Rifkind: I have had a number of very general discussions with the chairman of the SSEB covering all the issues that are relevant to this matter.

Dr. Reid: He says no.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members not to ask questions from a sedentary position, because that gazumps questions that are to be asked legitimately.

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the maintenance of the economic development role of the Scottish electricity supply industry after privatisation.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations on this matter. The Government intend that the major contribution which the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has made to the development of its area by providing secure supplies at an acceptable cost to remote consumers will be maintained after privatisation.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. Will he acknowledge that there is concern that the Government, either after, or in preparation for privatisation may force up electricity prices artificially? Will he give us an assurance that that will not be the case?
Secondly, will he assure us that the competitive prices that the North of Scotland board has been able to offer in the past will still be able to be offered in the future, so that industry in the north of Scotland can have one compensation for being remote from markets—having cheaper electricity than anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he sought in the first part of his question.
Fixing prices is a matter for the boards, not the Government. As for the second part, my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that common tariffs will apply under the legislation to the whole northern area.

Mr. McKelvey: Will the Minister or the Secretary of State please answer the question asked earlier about discussions between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board? Did the Secretary of State at any time during those discussions raise the matter of the social and economic disaster that will take place after privatisation, or discuss whether a deal can be struck between the SSEB and the coal board? Did he at any time discuss the social costs to the whole Scottish community?

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has already answered that question. The electricity board has made it clear that it is willing to contemplate a phased reduction in prices for coal.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of helping the economic development of the Scottish electricity supply industry after privatisation would have occurred if Ford had been able to construct a plant at Dundee, which would have used far more electricity? What representations have been received from hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench in support of the scheme?

Hon. Members: What scheme?

Mr. Lang: I am not certain to which scheme my hon. Friend refers, but it is true that the development of the economy and of enterprise in Scotland, leading to increased consumption of electricity, could only be of advantage to all consumers in Scotland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Minister, in his conversations about the development of the Scottish electricity system, discussed the possibility of a connector line with Northern Ireland, which would be in keeping with the EEC policy of interconnecting lines, and appropriate, as the Kilroot power station has contract with the Ayrshire mines?

Mr. Lang: That is an interesting matter, but the hon. Gentleman will have to pursue it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Scottish Health Education Group

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reviews he is conducting into the structure and function of the Scottish Health Education Group.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: None.

Dr. Moonie: The Minister is, I hope, by now aware that there have been considerable problems in the Scottish Health Education Group, where there has been a 220 per cent. turnover in staff during the past five years. Will he make representations to the management board of the Common Services Agency to ensure that the reorganisation now taking place within that department, for which he is responsible, is both speedy and effective, so that morale at SHEG can be restored to its former levels?

Mr. Forsyth: There has been an internal review of the staffing structure at SHEG, and discussions on that have


been somewhat protracted. I understand that they are now reaching a conclusion. I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Wilson: When the Minister has discussions with SHEG, will he bear in mind that having 320,000 unemployed in Scotland is probably the largest single contributory factor to the poor health habits of a depressed people? Will he express the astonishment of the House at the revelation by Mr. Donald Miller today that the social and health consequences for 10,000 people and their families in the mining communities of Scotland have not even been discussed by a Secretary of State who, at other times, sheds crocodile tears and seeks to make political capital out of the difficulties of creating employment in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: The Scottish Health Education Group exists to provide information to the people of Scotland on how to prevent ill health. In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I shall ensure that copies of its literature are sent to him for his education.

Employment and Training Measures

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently involved in Government employment and training measures in Scotland; and what is the estimated figure for expenditure on YTS in Scotland in the current year.

Mr. Lang: At the end of January 1988, 85,204 people were participating in YTS, the community programme and the enterprise allowance scheme in Scotland. In addition, between April 1987 and the end of January 1988, 42,188 entered adult training programmes. Estimated expenditure on YTS in Scotland in 1987–88 is £91 million.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of the Dundee Ford project will mean not simply the loss of 1,000 hi-tech jobs, but the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs to the local economy of Dundee? Is the tragedy of this case not simply the exposure of the stupidity of the Opposition and the Transport and General Workers Union, but the fact that many young people who could have had training and work experience will not now have those opportunities?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Dundee is an area to which we have devoted considerable care and attention in employment and training measures. The job training scheme was pioneered there, as were restart and job clubs. With the recent announcement bringing, as it does, a chilling reminder of the winter of discontent, the chances for young people in Dundee are inevitably diminished. Nevertheless, we shall do our best to restore those opportunities.

Nursery Education

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to encourage nursery education in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: For 1988–89, provision for expenditure by local authorities on nursery education is £31 million, representing an increase of 26½ per cent. in real terms over the level of expenditure in 1979–80, but it is for individual authorities to determine the priority given to this subject in their areas and the form of provision made for pre-school children.

Mr. Worthington: Is it not disgraceful that the Secretary of State has cancelled five years' work by members of his staff, who extolled the value of nursery education arid called for more resources to be devoted to it? When will he give a lead in this matter?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman has given me the conclusions of a study that was never completed — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Smile."] This is a serious subject. The Scottish Office has no responsibility for nursery education and pre-school provision. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, of all hon. Members, should seek to persuade the Scottish Office to interfere in a matter that we have left to local authority discretion.

New Hospital (Lanarkshire)

Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had any consultations with the Lanarkshire health board on the building of a new district general hospital within the Hamilton-East Kilbride unit; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Any proposal for a new hospital would have to be supported by an option appraisal and would require approval in principle by my right hon. and learned Friend. The Scottish Home and Health Department and the health board's officials have discussed the matter briefly at a recent strategic planning meeting.

Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware that within the Hamilton-East Kilbride unit there are 190,000 people who are not served by a district general hospital? When the hon. Gentleman considers this matter further, will he take full account of the strong representations made by the community, the consultants and the GPs within the Hamilton-East Kilbride unit for the building of this district general hospital at an early date?

Mr. Forsyth: As the Government are involved in the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the National Health Service in Scotland, I can understand why the hon. Gentleman expects a new hospital in his constituency. Any proposal for a new hospital would have to be submitted to the Department for approval in principle and be backed by a full and detailed option appraisal, to which we would give careful consideration.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order after the Standing Order No. 20 applications.

Tin Mining (Cornwall)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the sale by Rio Tinto Zinc, with Government backing, of its Cornish tin mining interests, resulting in 200 redundancies, and its relation to the agreement established in 1986 with the Government to maintain jobs and investment on a five-year programme.
Yesterday, Rio Tinto Zinc and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced the sale of Carnon Consolidated Ltd., which currently runs RTZ's tin mines in Cornwall. This has resulted in the proposed redundancy of 200 of the present 720 staff and a compulsory wage cut of 8 per cent. for the remainder. The decision has been dressed up in terms of a management and worker buy-out. However, the reality is that the workers will have access to only 20 per cent. of the shares, which will be held in a trust and will not be freely available to the work force, and the terms of the agreements with RTZ and the Government remain unclear.
It is vital that we have an opportunity to debate this issue. The matter is urgent because there will be no obvious alternative employment for those 200 workers if the company and the Government do not change their minds. The matter is specific because, in 1986, the Government agreed to provide the RTZ Corporation with an interest-free loan of up to £15 million and guarantee of commercial loans of up to £10 million to assist a capital development programme covering the next five years. The Government recognised in the past that the low prices could not last in the long term and that jobs and the interests in tin should be saved, but now jobs are going, purely because of continued short-term price shortfalls.
The House should have an opportunity to discuss this issue now, especially since the original terms of the Government aid have been broken and further Government support is involved. The House should have an opportunity to ensure that Government money has been and is being properly used. I ask you for a debate, Mr. Speaker, especially on behalf of those 200 Cornish workers and their families who deserve better treatment, after their efforts in saving the industry, than weeks of speculation, no consultation and now the heavy blow of job losses.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the sale by Rio Tinto Zinc, with Government backing, of its Cornish tin mining interests, resulting in 200 redundancies, and its relation to the agreement established in 1986 with the Government to maintain jobs and investment on a five-year programme.
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said on behalf of his constituents, but I regret that I do not think that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. However, I hope that the hon. Member will find other ways to raise the matter here.

Proposed Ford Plant (Dundee)

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the likely loss to Scotland of the proposed new Ford plant at Dundee arising from the stated intention of the leaders of the Transport and General Workers Union to confound today's decision of the general council of the Trade Union Congress to allow a single union agreement to go ahead.
I do not believe that there is an hon. Member who does not wish and pray that Ford may reverse its decision and bring this development to Dundee, to Scotland and to Great Britain. We face the prospect of a cataclysmic catastrophe in the loss not of any out-of-date industry but of the industry of the future. My constituency has 15 per cent. unemployment and the site of the development is partly in my constituency. For five months, nothing has been done to remove the objection of the Transport and General Workers Union. Indeed, last week the Labour party held its Scottish conference in my constituency and the matter was not mentioned, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who is sponsored by that union was present, with eight Scottish Opposition Members sponsored by that union.
The statement that we heard today would inevitably mean that Ford would not come to Dundee. The catastrophe for Scotland—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Fairbairn: —would be not only that we would lose Ford : we would lose an infinite number of other jobs; we would lose inward investment and we would regain our reputation as a bad place for industrial development. There has been silence from all Opposition Members, including the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do not care."]
My constituents in Scotland demand that the leaders of the Transport and General Workers Union now give an unequivocal statement that they will adhere to the recommendation of the Trade Union Congress. I do not believe that there has ever been a more important industrial matter in Scotland. It is critical. I ask for a debate on behalf of the whole of Scotland and I am sure that I speak for the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the likely loss to Scotland of the proposed new Ford plant at Dundee arising from the stated intention of the leaders of the Transport and General Workers Union to confound today's decision of the General Council of the Trade Union Congress to allow a single union agreement to go ahead.
I listened with interest and concern to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, as I did to today's exchanges at Question Time. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not question your decision but I, too, regret that you have not been able to grant the Standing


Order No. 20 application, because it would have given us the opportunity to expose the absolute and total hypocrisy with which the Secretary of State for Scotland has covered himself in relation to the Ford issue.
I have a point of order relating to the conduct of today's Question Time. When the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) sought to ask a question about Ford in Dundee on Question 6, you told him that there was a later question on the Order Paper relating to Ford. I put it to you, Sir, that there was no such later question. That conveys to me the distinct impression that someone—possibly someone on the Conservative Benches — had advised you that he intended to use Question 8 in relation to the Ford Motor Company at Dundee.
When you said that, those of us here on the Back Benches rightly or wrongly expected that Question 8 would be allowed to run. Tragically and unfortunately, you cut that question short and, on my behalf and on behalf of my Back Bench colleagues, I object most strongly to the fact that Question 8 was cut short because it was on an important issue. There is a distinct impression among my colleagues and myself that the Secretary of State was being protected today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer a question of that sort. The reason why I said what I did, I believe it was on Question 7, was that the question related to the poll tax and community charge. On the second point, I assure the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that I seek to do my homework and assess what might be raised during Question Time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is appropriate for the Chair to do that. I anticipated that the issue of Ford would arise on Question 8. There has certainly been no collusion; I assure the hon. Gentleman of that absolutely.
On the matter of not allowing that question to run, we keep careful timing and that question ran for 11 minutes. That is much longer than I would normally allow any individual question.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the individual concerned, let me make it quite clear that I was perfectly satisfied with the way in which you presented it and the decision you made, and I hope that the rest of the House will accept that.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your reply to the previous point of order—that that you had judged that Question 8 was the appropriate question on which the Ford issue could be addressed — would it not have been appropriate, particularly given the time taken up by the Minister rather than by hon. Members seeking to question the Minister, for that question to be taken at the end of Question Time so as to allow for proper exchanges? You said that it was an important question. Therefore, why was it that you felt that that important question should be confined to a debate between the Labour party and the Conservative party, which have not covered themselves with glory in this matter and neither of which has done Scotland a service? Would it not have been appropriate to take that question at the end in order to allow all parties to participate?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not decide whether questions are taken at the end. That is done at the request of a Minister. It happens occasionally and it may well be that that would have been appropriate today. It was not in my hands.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. From the large number of hon. Members rising from their seats, it was clear to see how important that issue was. Subsequently, many Conservative Members chose to abuse other questions on the Order Paper and, under spurious guises, attempted to make political capital out of a vital issue in Scotland.
Surely the protection of Back Benchers means that, when there is an opportunity to question a Minister on a vital issue, it should be extended to those who are genuine in their concern.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: All on the same matter?

Mr. Allan Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?

Mr. Stewart: It is related, Mr. Speaker. Is it not incumbent upon the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) to withdraw his criticism of your conduct (luring Scottish Question Time?

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not need any lectures from someone such as the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). I did not say anything that I feel it is necessary to withdraw. If I am not sincere in what I say and if I did not think carefully before saying what I do, I would withdraw. However, I have sat here today angry at the way in which the people of Dundee and my colleagues on both sides of the House—the Liberal party and the Scottish National party make fair points — were treated. I am right, and I have no intention of withdrawing my comments. I am right to express that anger.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The business for today is under a timetable motion and this takes time out of that. I say to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that I am the first to realise how frustrating it is if one is not called to ask a question at Question Time.
In relation to what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, frequently after Question Time, specifically Scottish Question Time, I receive letters from hon. Members saying that we have not gone fast enough. Today we could have probably spent a great deal of time on Question 8. However, I have to bear in mind other opportunities and, indeed, they could arise later this week on the Easter Adjournment motion.

Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you reconsider the request from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbaim)?

Mr. Speaker: I do not reconsider my decisions on such matters.

Mr. Favell: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: No, I said that I do not reconsider my decisions on Standing Order 20 applications.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask how much longer you will tolerate continued attacks on your judgment and integrity under the guise of bogus points of order from the Opposition? Many Conservative Members are getting extremely tired of the time of the House being wasted in this way. Is it not clear from the attack upon you this afternoon that not only is the Labour party prepared to sacrifice 1,000 jobs in Dundee, but that it wants to add your job to the list?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a very easy job.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If hon. Members take a copy of Hansard tomorrow morning and read what happened at Question Time, they will find that during the question involved there were a great many repetitive questions which caused the Minister to repeat his answer several times. That being the case, the time went very quickly. I did not catch your eye at all today, but I make no complaint whatever about that.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order.

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take two more points of order, but I say to both hon. Gentlemen that we are again to have a debate under a timetable motion and that many points of order take up the time of hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in the coming debate.

Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that it is appropriate to Question Time, and it arises from the last point of order. I think that it is order to say that part of the reason for questions being repeated is that frequently they are not answered. For instance, the Secretary of State was asked three times today whether he had discussed the social cost consequences of the loss of the SSEB contract by British Coal. He has not yet given a straight answer to that question.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a continuation of Question Time. I shall allow one more point of order. Mr. Hind.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I said that I would call the two hon. Gentlemen who have been rising.

Mr. Faulds: I will be the second.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that would be very helpful, but we must move on.

BILL PRESENTED

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GENERAL POWERS)

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Bernie Grant, Ms. Joan Walley, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Eric S. Heffer and Mr. Dennis Skinner presented a Bill to confer general powers on all local authorities; to restrict the powers of the District Auditor in relation to those authorities; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

Hospital Consultants (Transfer and Revision of Contracts)

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to transfer the contracts of hospital consultants from the regional to the district health authorities: and to amend and redefine the contractual terms of hospital consultants.
I present this Bill because of my concern over a series of events that have led to an unfortunate reorganisation of hospitals in my constituency, and also because of an extensive catalogue of incidents in the constituencies of other hon. Members which suggest that we have our structure wrong. In my own case, local hospitals, including Gravesend hospital, were reorganised as a reaction to pressure from the Royal College of Surgeons of England. This was apparently in response to internal politics by certain local consultants. Under the threat of derecognition of junior posts, the district health authority caved in. The interests of the consultants were served at the expense of the public for whom the National Health Service exists.
Consultants' contracts are held in most cases by the regional health authorities, and by the teaching districts and the boards of governors of postgraduate hospitals in the minority of cases. It is the contracts with the regions that are of most concern. The whole thrust of modern-day management of the NHS depends on the effective use of resources at district level. The Select Committee on Social Services considered this very point. In its report on medical education, it said :
Consultants are a most important resource. If DHAs are truly to exercise discretion in determining which problems should receive priority and which services should be developed, they should not have to rely on the regions, any more than is necessary to plan and manage this very basic resource.
It went on to recommend,
that the DHAs should be the employing authority for consultants.
In their reply, the Government said:
virtually no medical professional body was in favour of District employment.
Well, they would, wouldn't they? The Government said that they feared "an apprehensive and unhappy profession". They have settled for happy consultants at the expense of effective DHAs.
The reason why most DHAs provide effective local hospital services is that most consultants are dedicated, hard-working professionals. However, the DHAs are largely defenceless against a tiny minority of troublesome, under-performing or incompetent consultants. That must be changed.
Yet another sector for reform is that of merit awards. The average consultant earns £60,000 a year from the National Health Service. On top of that amount, he can receive up to a further £30,000 from distinction awards. In practice, they are awarded on the recommendation of a national committee of consultants meeting in secret conclave. The Committee advises the DHSS of its awards, which instructs the respective DHAs to pay ad infinitum.
One can imagine the qualifications for such awards. Studies have shown how they favour male consultants in the more glamorous faculties. Local district budgets have the costs unilaterally loaded on to them—a cost of £60 million nationwide in consultants' merit awards. If DHAs


have funds for merit awards, they should be paid for patient care, operations performed or other local service criteria.
Last, I raise the potential conflict of interest for consultants who work in the National Health Service and who operate in the private sector. The temptations are only too clear. It is absurd to make consultants the potential beneficiaries of National Health Service waiting lists that are under their own influence.
The Bill raises important matters that are vital to the National Health Service. It is a case of a minority of unscrupulous consultants versus the people. The only reason why our hospitals work as well as they do is that most consultants are a credit to our community.
I ask for the support of all hon. Members because there is nothing that those people would like better than for the politicians to squabble with each other rather than unitedly fight the abuses being committed against the patients of our National Health Service.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Michael Fallon, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. John Marshall, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Mr. Neil Thorne, and Mr. Malcolm Moss.

Mr. Jacques Arnold accordingly presented a Bill to transfer the contracts of hospital consultants from the regional to the district health authorities: and to amend and redefine the contractual terms of hospital consultants: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 April and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

Education Reform Bill (Allocation of Time)

Resolved,
That the Report [22nd March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Maclean.]
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) — [Mr. Maclean.]—and agreed to.

Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
Education Reform Bill (Business Committee), — The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means reported from the Business Committee, That it had come to a further Resolution in respect of the Education Reform Bill, which it had directed him to report to the House:
That—

(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be Government new Clauses; remaining new Clauses; Amendments to Clauses Nos. 1 to 7, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 8 to 33, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 34 to 57, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 58 to 99, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 100 to 102, Schedule No. 5, Clauses Nos. 103 to 112, Schedule No. 6, Clauses 113 to 134, Schedule No. 7, Clause No. 167, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 168 to 175 and 135 to 164, Schedule No. 8, Clauses Nos. 165, 166 and 176 to 186 and Schedules Nos. 10 and 11; and new Schedules;
(2) the allotted days which, under the Order of 1st February, as varied by the Order of 17th February, are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order as so varied, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

Table


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Government new Clauses
6 p.m.



New Clauses Nos. 1 to 9
8.45 p m.



Remaining new Clauses
10 p.m.


Second day
Amendments to Clause No. 1
6 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No.37
8.15 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No.98
10 p.m.


Third day
Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 109
6 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Schedule No. 7
8 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 175
10 p.m.


Fourth day
Amendments up to the end of Clause No.166
7 p.m.



Remaining proceedings on consideration
7.45 p.m.



Third Reading
10 p.m.

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, as a consequence of the guillotine motion that the House agreed on 10 February as a result of Conservative Members voting in favour of it, although there are 31 separate debates scheduled to take place during this second day of consideration of the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill, it is extremely unlikely, even if short speeches are made, that more than three separate debates will take place?
Will you confirm, Sir, that that flows directly from the imposition of the guillotine and that if Conservative Members are concerned, as we are, that a number of important issues cannot be discussed they should have thought of that before voting for the guillotine motion?

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Further to that point of order, Mr.


Speaker. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's complaints, as the Bill has already been debated for 200 hours in Committee. We now have four days of debate on the Floor of the House, of which three are still ahead of us. The hon. Gentleman is really complaining about the inept way in which the Opposition handled the Committee stage. They have muffed their chances, and all their thunder has been stolen by the minority parties. It is no use the hon. Gentleman blaming the guillotine for the ineffective lack-lustre methods adopted by his party in Committee.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before dealing with the point of order, I remind hon. Members that a motion has been passed on the order in which the amendments are to be taken. Points of order take up further time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that the Bill had been considered in Standing Committee for 200 hours. There are hon. Members who, for good reasons, could not participate in the Second Reading debate and were not members of the Standing Committee. Will you confirm that Report stage is aimed especially at such Members, so the comments of the Secretary of State were a little off beam?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. Report stages provide an opportunity for Members who were not on the Standing Committee to make their contributions.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter has been raised because certain Conservative Members, having voted for the guillotine, complained that points that they wished to raise would not be reached. When I raised question about this, it was clear that they did not know what voting for the guillotine meant. They had brought the problem of which they complained upon themselves by voting for the guillotine. Perhaps they should have a lecture from the Secretary of State on what voting for a guillotine means. As I pointed out yesterday, it does not mean beheading anyone in New Palace Yard.

Orders of the Day — Education Reform Bill

2ND ALLOTTED DAY

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE CURRICULUM

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'every maintained school' and insert
'as respects the education of all children of compulsory school age'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 56, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'maintained school' and insert
'school with more than nineteen pupils'.
No. 58, in page 1, line 14, leave out from second 'of' to end of line 15 and insert
'every school with more than nineteen pupils'.

Mr. Fatchett: Yesterday, in what was to some extent a preliminary skirmish, we discussed a series of important issues. We now come to the heart of the Bill and of the Government's proposals. In many respects, the key to those proposals is the Government's submission of a national curriculum.
The Secretary of State, in his usual charming manner, has often tried to pretend that there is a national consensus on his proposal for a national curriculum. As we pointed out yesterday, no such consensus is apparent in the opinion polls. Despite, or perhaps because of, the right hon. Gentleman's advocacy of his own curriculum, support for a national curriculum has fallen by about 20 per cent. in the past four months. Some of us wish that the Secretary of State would spend even more time advocating his own cause, as all his proposals might then receive negative support.
There is no consensus among parents or among the Opposition, although the Secretary of State sometimes likes to pretend that there is. Anyone who has read the Committee Hansards knows that the Labour party and the minority parties tried time and again to amend the proposals for a whole series of reasons. That does not mean that we do not believe in an agreed core curriculum. It would be foolish and churlish to pretend otherwise. Conservative Members who have read our election manifesto—I am sure that they all have—will recognise that we went into the last election with a proposal for an agreed core curriculum.
It is difficult to describe what is before us as an agreed core curriculum. It is a curriculum that the Secretary of State has tried to impose without consultation with teacher organisations, without effective consultation with local authorities, and certainly without any meaningful consultation with parents or parent organisations.
Serious criticisms can be made of the Secretary of State's proposal for a national curriculum. First, the national curriculum is in danger of being too prescriptive, too restrictive and static. The best educational changes in recent years have taken place when teachers have brought


forward new ideas, such as the movement towards design and technology subjects. Such new ideas came from teachers but now figure centrally in terms of curriculum development.
Secondly, we have expressed concern time after time that the Government have no notion of what the national curriculum needs in terms of resources or the amount of time that it will demand of the school timetable. Indeed, we have had some fanciful notions in relation to the amount of time—from, I believe, one minute from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), to 99 per cent. of school time.
The national curriculum is variable in terms of the Government's notion of what a national curriculum is. We feel strongly that in bringing his proposal to the House and the country the Government should have had a much clearer idea of what they meant by a "national curriculum".
Thirdly, in Committee we expressed our unease about the balance in the national curriculum. Some of that unease will be expressed in the later debate, which I shall not pre-empt. We tabled new clauses in Committee to deal with the question of the teaching of the arts and their role in the national curriculum. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will talk about development curriculum in his area. We still feel strongly that the arts provide an important part of school life and should be an important part of any agreed core curriculum. We feel that the Secretary of State's national curriculum does not fit our requirement to satisfy the needs of the arts and the potential for the development for individuals and subjects, through study of the arts.
We have expressed substantial reservations and concerns about the national curriculum, and it would be a total misinterpretation of the events in Standing Committee for the Secretary of State to pretend that there has been consensus for his version of the national curriculum. Indeed, the Secretary of State seems to have some difficulty in carrying sections of his own party with him.
Those of us who have had the opportunity of reading an article in The Observer on Sunday will have seen the headline over a story by Judith Judd, its education correspondent, entitled "Tories in school rift". It is yet another story of arguments between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Dr. Sheila Lawlor, who worked in Conservative Central Office until the last election is reported as arguing
that the national curriculum should be confined to three core subjects: English, maths and science.
Her views are significant because they echo those of Mrs. Thatcher, who has been battling with Mr. Kenneth Baker, Education Secretary, over the national curriculum.
It does not need a very perceptive journalist to recognise that that battle has been taking place, because the Secretary of State carries the scars around with him for all of us to see. Some of us would like to have a slight gamble on the result of that battle, and if we were to have a slight gamble, it would be that the right hon. Lady will win. That will be yet another victory for matriarchy in the Cabinet. The Prime Minister will again be victorious.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Martin Flannery: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) first.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Secretary of State loses the battle, he is liable to be found in St. James's park collecting the refuse?

Mr. Fatchett: I do not know what fate will befall the Secretary of State, although we all take a keen interest in his future. Incidentally, my hon. Friend will be interested in the stories about how that rubbish arrived in St. James's park. It may well have been spread there for the Prime Minister to pick up at a later stage. I cannot imagine the Secretary of State getting into such an unprincipled position that he would want to be the man who put down the rubbish for the Prime Minister to pick up later.

Mr. Dalyell: What odds would my hon. Friend give me if I put my money on the Secretary of State to win?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into strange paths. I know that he comes from a strictly puritanical background. In that respect it is dangerous to tempt me into gambling, and it is certainly against his moral code.

Mr. Timothy Raison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not farcical that we should have to listen to this, as it has absolutely nothing to do with this selection of amendments? There is a real problem that, in the first time scale up to 6 o'clock, only one debate has been allocated and an enormous number of subjects relating to the national curriculum are extremely unlikely to be reached. Is it not odd that only one subject should have been chosen for the period up to 6 o'clock, and is it not a reproach that Opposition Members cannot think of anything relevant to say on the one subject that they have chosen?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we are not responsible for the selection of amendments.
The amendments seek to do two things. First, they try to ensure that smaller schools, which may have reason to opt out of the national curriculum, may do so. Secondly, they try to ensure that the national curriculum covers all our children in all our schools.
I deal first with the point about smaller schools. I refer to the primary sector by definition of the numbers used in the amendment. Some smaller schools will have genuine difficulty in delivering the national curriculum. There has to be a balanced argument on this, because in many rural communities the small school is seen as being of great advantage to that community. Such smaller schools provide a good standard of education. There is much defence of the small primary schools that are at the heart of village life. I should have thought that the Government would want to find a means by which a particular school, which may have difficulty in delivering the national curriculum, can somehow exempt itself from that national curriculum, but have the ability to continue to deliver the good standard of education which is often associated with village schools.
I know that, in the role that he performs for the Government, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford often has to deal with the proposed closures of village schools. He will often find that the quality of education in such schools is of a high standard. In such cases, it may be difficult — technically and


literally—to deliver the national curriculum, if one takes a prescriptive and formal view of it. The amendment asks whether it will be possible to find a mechanism whereby the relationship of those schools to the national curriculum is not too formally restricted. Perhaps when the Minister of State replies, she could give us a response on that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in our part of the world where the standard of education in some very small schools is quite outstandingly good, those schools will have every opportunity to deliver the national curriculum, because they already do so automatically? It is what they regard as standard good practice, and they deliver it. Whether or not the Bill comes in, those schools will still deliver what is now known as the core curriculum.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady makes my argument. We are concerned about maintaining those schools and that good quality of education. If there is a good quality of education that is in line with the national curriculum, there is no problem. If there is a quality of education which may not be strictly in line with the national curriculum but which is still perceived by parents and teachers as being good, especially if, in a small school, it may be difficult to deliver the national curriculum and its demands in relation to resources—particularly in terms of science pre-11—it may be sensible for the Government to think about the possibility of those small schools having the right to opt out of the formal prescription of the national curriculum. That is all that the amendment seeks to do.
We are trying to be helpful. We are trying to help village schools and village life. If the national curriculum is too much of a dead hand, it could be too restrictive. We tabled the amendment to see how the Government reacted to the problem. I think that we share with the hon. Lady some interest in what the Minister of State says when she concludes the debate. I assure the hon. Lady that there is no attempt in this part of my speech to divide the House on party political grounds, because all of us are trying to secure the continuation of village schools. We do not want to see the national curriculum as a barrier in that respect.
The second part of the amendment refers to the application of the national curriculum to all our children. If there is an argument for a national curriculum, it must extend to each and every one of our children. We have still had no response from the Government on why the so-called national curriculum does not apply to the private sector. Why does the Cabinet not apply the national curriculum to its children? If it is good enough for children in the maintained sector, is it not good enough for the children of Members of the Cabinet? Is it not good enough for the children who go to private sector schools? The Government have not yet given an answer to that.
The Government have an obligation to give an answer to those of my constituents who come to me and say, "Mr. Fatchett, we understand that Mr. Baker has come up with another of his ideas." I always say to them, "Calm down, because the last of Mr. Baker's ideas was the poll tax." My constituents say, "This is a good idea. Mr. Baker says that he will have a national curriculum for all our children. We think that that is a wonderful idea. He will extend the national curriculum to every one of our children." But I say, "No, Mr. Baker will extend the national curriculum

only to children who are taught in the maintained sector." Those who buy their education for their children will be able to opt out of the national curriculum, but that right does not apply to my constituents, who have to rely upon the maintained sector. Why does not the Secretary of State's idea apply to all our children?
One or two justifications were given for that in Committee. I re-read the debate with interest. At column 42, the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said that the difference was that those who were in the private sector had "the freedom to move." That is an interesting argument. That freedom to move is restricted because, by definition, the private sector is restricted. That freedom to move does not apply to more than 90 per cent. of the population.
Let me use the words expressed by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday — it is a freedom to move that can be exercised only "through the cheque book." That freedom does not apply to all our children. It allows some to opt out of the national curriculum, but the vast majority of parents, under what is supposedly a parents' charter, do not have that right.
There is a distortion in logic, because the Government tell us that the Bill is about giving all parents the freedom to choose the school they want for their child. If that is so, and if open enrolment is to provide that freedom, why should it not allow the national curriculum to apply to the independent schools or, by implication, why should it not allow the state sector to opt out of the national curriculum? Why cannot parents in the maintained sector exercise the same freedom as those in the private sector and say, "We do not want to go to maintained school A because it follows the national curriculum, but we want to go to maintained school B because its curriculum is biased more towards the arts, or towards the sciences."? Why cannot those parents make that choice, if it can be made in the private sector?
The second justification for not applying the national curriculum to the private sector was offered by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) in a speech which I read this morning and which was, as usual, interesting and full of interventions. The hon. Gentleman always stimulated the Committee. He argued that the simple difference was that the private schools were subject to
the ultimate sanction of the market place". —[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 10 December 1987; c. 51.]
Therefore, all else falls and the market place predominates in our view of the values and priorities of education. Can society accept that? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] The hon. Gentleman can, but is there an absolute right and an absolute freedom for the market place?
I re-read what the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said. He said that education had two purposes. One is the transmission of shared cultural values —education transmits from generation to generation what our society is about. If one holds that view, one cannot at the same time—because it is inconsistent—give absolute freedom to the market place because the market place may operate in divergence from, in conflict with, the values of the education system and the culture that one is trying to transmit from generation to generation. The hon.


Gentleman's support for the market place cannot run alongside the support of a national education system with a national curriculum.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. He is making a meal of the argument. In my experience, in the private sector the schools are extremely sensitive to the expectations of the national education system. They tend to adopt the parts of the national education system that they see as an improvement remarkably rapidly and effectively.
There is a difference between schools that are wholly accountable to the Secretary of State, the Government and the public sector for their financing, and schools that are not. With regard to shared cultural values, the hon. Gentleman will find that over the centuries the private sector has consistently adopted the parts of the national education system that conduce towards such values.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman comes to the third justification—

Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman referred to the independents and to "the freedom to move". This was the point that was made in Committee. That phrase means that, if a parent does not like the quality or standard of education that is being given to his child in an independent school, he can exercise the ultimate sanction. Either he does not send his child to that school or he removes his child from the school. With respect, that is the point that was made in Committee.

Mr. Fatchett: With respect, I have already dealt with that point. If the argument of the hon. Gentleman and the Government is that all parents will be given greater freedom, why does not that freedom extend all the way—why does it not extend, by analogy, to allowing parents to make a choice on the school curriculum and the provision that it will give?

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall not give way. We must make progress, because this is a short debate. I respect the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison).
The Government's third justification has been used by the Minister of State and by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). They say that this is not a problem, that the vast majority of schools in the independent sector already teach something that looks like the national curriculum. I congratulate the schools in the private sector on being so perceptive. If they teach something that is like the national curriculum, perhaps they should tell Ministers so that they can define what the national curriculum is, because after five months' debate on the Bill, it is clear that they have no idea.
Assuming that the private sector is so perceptive, the Minister argued that there is no justification for extending the legal requirement to the private sector, and the private sector should still be allowed to opt out. There are two faults in that argument. The first relates to the argument by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. I took the opportunity to look at the Education Act 1944, section 71 of which places a responsibility upon the Secretary of State's shoulders to oversee the standards and quality of education provided in the private sector.
With respect to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, we are not discussing an absolute market because the Secretary of State has a regulating, statutory control over private sector education. Given that the Secretary of State already has that control, and if he is proud of his concept of a national curriculum, there is no legal difficulty in extending that statutory responsibility under section 71 of the 1944 Act to private and independent schools. The power is already there.
I am not embarrassed to repeat what I consider to be the second fault in the argument. It may be said that private and independent schools already provide a good education and therefore they should not be covered by the national curriculum. Conservative Members should consider that many local authority and maintained schools provide a good standard of education for our children—a standard of which they and we are proud. If it is considered that the private sector does a good job and does not need to be covered by the national curriculum, why does that principle not pertain to the maintained sector as well? That is another example of the characteristic double standards of the Government.

Mr. Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, until now, schools in the maintained sector have had the freedom that he has described as presently pertaining to independent schools? I have exercised that freedom by introducing new and desired subjects with the support of pupils and parents. Given that freedom, however, we have still produced children whose average attainment in most subjects at 16 is some two years behind some of our continental rivals. In mathematics, the average attainment of our children is the same as the average attainment of the bottom 50 per cent. of children in Germany. Something must be done.

Mr. Fatchett: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interventions. Indeed, I believe that he has made my argument better than I have so far managed to do. He is arguing that the maintained sector has enjoyed freedom, but that that freedom should be taken away, yet the private sector should retain that freedom. That illustrates exactly what I said about double standards and hypocrisy. The hon. Gentleman has put forward that argument with conviction and has set it out naked for all to see.
There is a simple explanation of why the private sector will not be covered by the national curriculum—because the Government believe in privilege. They practise that privilege for themselves, and in last week's Budget they invested in privilege and further divided our society. Such are the double standards that are typical of the Government. We oppose such double standards. If there is to be a national curriculum, properly agreed, resourcecl and discussed with teachers and parents, it must apply to all our children, without favour and without privilege. In that way, each of our children will have the opportunity to benefit from that national curriculum. Until that happens, the Government stand condemned of hypocrisy and double standards.

Mr. Raison: I will be doubly brief because, this debate does not have to run until 6 o'clock. I accept that it could but I believe that there are many other worthwhile matters that we could move on to at a cracking rate.
I wish to refer to the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) regarding why


the national curriculum should not apply to the independent sector. Fundamentally, the answer has to do with who provides those schools. The schools in the state sector — if I may use that term — are provided by the state and by the local authorities. The schools in the independent sector are provided by other people. In a nutshell that expresses the essence of the argument.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the Education Act 1944 and he should consider section 1 of the Act because it sets the argument in context. That section states that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State
to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.
That section is significant because of the change it contains. Halfway through, that section discusses specifically the role of the local education authority and states that the Secretary of State has the job of controlling and directing the fulfilment of national policy. There is a marked change of tone in that section and it corresponds exactly with my argument.
There is a general duty upon the Secretary of State to promote education. Certainly, he has a policing role in relation to the independent sector—to which the hon. Member for Leeds, Central valiantly referred—but he has greater power to control and direct the provision of state education, primarily provided by local education authorities. That is the justification—it is entirely logical — for the fact that the Secretary of State has decided that the national curriculum is to apply to the state sector, but not to the independent sector. Indeed, independence is the essence of that sector.

Mr. Roger Stott: In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) I was not a member of the Committee. Because of certain other Opposition Front Bench duties, I rarely get an opportunity to speak from the Back Benches, but I have felt it necessary to do so today because I have a keen interest in the national curriculum.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) I have read—today I have listened to—the rather spurious justifications as to why the private sector should not be subjected to the national curriculum. The justifications that have been put forward by Consevative Members are defective and warped. I do not see any justification for the private sector not being subjected to the national curriculum as proposed by the Secretary of State. Perhaps if I pursue that line of argument, however, I might not wish such a curriculum to be imposed upon the private sector because I take strong objection to the curriculum that the Secretary of State is seeking to impose on the maintained sector.
The Secretary of State is aware that most of us would prefer some form of core curriculum—that is obvious and necessary. Having established that core curriculum, its development should be left to the local education authorities and they should ensure that they fulfil their functions under the Education Act 1944.
The Secretary of State is aware that I represent a small part of the metropolitan borough of Wigan. Some time ago the people who run the education services of Wigan

took the view that education was extremely important and, as a consequence of local government reorganisation that occurred some 14 years ago, they prioritised expenditure on education. They did so to ensure that all our children got entitlements under the curriculum. The Secretary of State is aware of that because his inspectors were in Wigan about 18 months ago to draw up their report. If the Secretary of State has read that report—if he has not, he should — he will know, or at least his Department will know, that the HMI report was absolutely superb.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State does not know where Wigan is.

Mr. Stott: If the Secretary of State does not know where Wigan is, he should come and look.
Perhaps the Secretary of State saw a recent programme on BBC2. He must surely know that BBC2 is doing a series of programmes on education. One programme was about Wigan's educational policy. We are proud that we prioritise arts in education. I recommend that the Secretary of State gets a tape from his Department and watches the programme. We prioritise our expenditure and place the arts highly.
4.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) visited the Drumcroom arts centre in Wigan and he will confirm that it is one of the finest in Great Britain. We have artists in residence and perform a host of music from rock to classical. Lest Conservative Members think that because the curriculum is art-orientated, it is defective in ensuring that our students are properly educated, the inspectors' report states that in the whole of the United Kingdom Wigan comes ninth for passes in GCE 0 and A-levels. Bearing in mind that there is 18 per cent. unemployment and a great deal of council housing, and that many people are on social security and most people come from deprived backgrounds, that record is a shining example of local authority education.
The Secretary of State now seeks to impose on the metropolitan borough of Wigan a national curriculum which is wholly inferior to the one we have. I wish that he would come to Wigan and debate this with me, because there is interest in it. The Socialist Education Association with the assistance of the local authority has held two day schools for governors: one in Wigan and one in Leigh. On each occasion about 150 governors attended to examine the Secretary of State's proposals for a national curriculum. They came from all parties and included Church people, and not a single governor approved of or agreed with the Secretary of State's imposition of a national curriculum.
It is paradoxical that I support an amendment which seeks to foist on the private sector a national curriculum which I do not want foisted on the Wigan LEA. This debate at least gives some of us an opportunity to tell the Secretary of State that we have been around for a long time, developing curricula and entitling all our children, wherever they come from, to learning. This national curriculum does not allow LEAs to do that.
As I have said, some people may criticise us for prioritising the arts in education, but that has not stopped the vast majority of the children in my area attaining good academic qualifications and standards. Indeed, it has helped. The Secretary of State seeks to deny those children that opportunity.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): indicated dissent.

Mr. Stott: It is no use the Secretary of State shaking his head. That will be the effect. For those reasons, although they may seem perverse, I shall support the amendment.

Mr. Michael Carttiss: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that any core curriculum that gives advantage to the arts will eliminate the use of words such as "prioritise". I can hardly pronounce such an inappropriate word. If that is the outcome of the core curriculum established in Wigan, I do not think much of it.
Yesterday and again this afternoon the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) remarked that my right hon. Friend was arguing incorrectly when he asserted that the Bill has gained in popularity and has become more widely accepted as it has gone through the House.

Mr. Fatchett: That is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Carttiss: The hon. Gentleman contradicted my right hon. Friend's statement that more people are coming to accept the Bill. There is no doubt about that. When it comes into effect, the public will wonder why on earth it was ever opposed and why it took the Committee 200 hours to debate it.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is making wild statements. I have never received a single letter in support of the Bill. How many letters has he received? We have not received any.

Mr. Carttiss: I wonder how many letters the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and his colleagues have received in favour of nationalisation and 101 other policies which they pretend are the answers to the ills of this nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not allow myself the rather unsophisticated measurement of the popularity of a Bill as being how many letters people write in support of or against it. The volume of mail I had in favour of retaining dog licences far exceeded my mail on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: No doubt my hon. Friend has not received many letters about the Bill, but I am sure that he can reassure the House that during the general election he put these proposals in his election material. Can he tell the House how many votes he received on the strength of that?

Mr. Carttiss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We had the biggest share of the poll that has ever been cast in the Great Yarmouth constituency for a Conservative Government — over 51 per cent. [Interruption.] As a former chairman of the Norfolk education committee and as a person who earned his living as a teacher in the town that I now proudly represent, I do not need letters from people telling me that the Bill is right.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Has the hon. Gentleman been to the Library and read the responses to the consultation documents from teachers, parents and local education authorities? [HON. MEMBERS: "Vested interests."] There are not many people who are not parents, teachers or connected with LEAs. Those people encompass a large section of the population. Has the hon. Gentleman looked at those responses? What support is in them for the Bill and, in particular, this clause?

Mr. Carttiss: I have not read the responses in the Library, nor do I intend to do so. My role is to judge and reflect the views of the people who have sent me here, and I have no doubt what they are.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Carttiss: I shall give way once more, but I must make my point on the clause rather than on the popularity of the Bill.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the regrettable fact that the Lancashire education committee failed properly to notify many of the schools in our area so that they did not have an opportunity to respond? Half my district were informed by a good district education officer and they responded positively; the other half did not. The ones that have responded have had many of their anxieties carefully dealt with by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Carttiss: As a member of governing bodies, I have met parents and teachers individually, away from the pressures of their union leaders. Some teachers in my constituency have become more sympathetic to the objectives which my right hon. Friend has brought before the House as they have read and come to understand the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made an intervention from a sedentary position about knee-jerk responses. That is very much the attitude of the educational establishment, from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals down to the smallest branch of the National Union of Teachers. If the Government bring in a proposal to change what has been going on in education for a long time, it is automatically seen as wrong.
I am conscious that there is a guillotine — incidentally, I did not support it—so I want to conclude by referring to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. As the Bill has progressed, it has been recognised that it addresses what is in the forefront of a better education service. I have become more impressed and more readily persuaded by the depth of understanding of the Government Front Bench team. As an ex-teacher and a former local authority member, I had considerable reservations about various aspects of the Bill. As I have studied the proceedings in Committee, I have been more convinced that the reform will be welcomed.
I am still in difficulty about the provision which the Opposition seek to amend. If we believe that a national core curriculum should be introduced — that has been accepted with varying emphasis by Opposition Members—it should apply to all schools. I do not accept the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) or the interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Rugby and Kenilworth"(M r. Pawsey) who attempted to justify the exclusion of the independent sector from the national core curriculum.
I understand the arguments which have been advanced and I note of the distinction drawn by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury between schools provided by the state and schools provided independently. However, the notion that all independent schools offer children a wonderful education is not completely accurate in my experience. A significant number of private schools


need a shake. The idea that parents can take their children away from a school or will send them to a school only if they are satisfied that they will get the best education there is not always an accurate reflection of the reality which dictates a decision. Sometimes the decision to opt for a private school results from the abysmal failure of nearby local authority comprehensive schools. Therefore, let us not imagine that the practices which we are putting forward as appropriate are not already in existence in many state-maintained schools.
Many local authority schools will welcome the core curriculum being a national requirement which will be judged to be in the best interests of pupils. For that reason, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will in due time consider the argument that there is merit in a national core curriculum being applied to the independent sector as well as to the whole of the maintained sector.
I support 100 per cent. the offer—not imposition—of a national core curriculum. It is a long overdue reform which would have been welcomed by many teachers 20 years ago when I started to teach. If anything is wrong, it is that the proposal is late. I think of all the pupils who missed the chance of having a national core curriculum. I welcome all of this. I hope that as the Bill progresses, we will consider the possibility of extending the core curriculum to the independent sector as well as to the state sector.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The House will have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and particularly to the latter part of his speech. We shall watch with interest to see whether he has the stomach to follow his speech in the Division.
One of the most revealing aspects of the hon. Gentleman's speech was the perhaps unintended answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who asked whether he had received any letters of support from parents for the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's reply was to ask whether the Labour party had received any support for nationalisation. It was a fair retort. Of course, the two answers are connected. There was very little support for nationalisation, which is why there is very little support for the national curriculum, which is nationalisation, as was revealed clearly by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison).
The right hon. Gentleman made a remarkable argument. He said that independent schools should not be subject to what the Government insist on calling a national curriculum because they are not state schools. He thus revealed immediately that we are not dealing with a national curriculum which will apply to the whole nation but with a state curriculum. That is why it is so offensive.
The right hon. Member for Aylesbury hoped that we would get through the debate quickly. He would have that hope, because this is a sorry and distasteful example of partiality and double standards. In wishing to pass over it quickly, the right hon. Gentleman at least recognises the justifiable embarrassment to Conservative Members.
The right hon. Gentleman's third point was about independence. He said that independent schools should not have to adhere to the national curriculum, because

they are independent. But at the very centre of the Government's argument on the Bill is that they are seeking to give independence and freedom to schools and to parents. Nowhere in the Bill is this more nakedly revealed as a fraud than in the fact that the Government will not give parents in the maintained sector the right and the freedom which are being given to parents in the independent sector.
They argue freedom on the one hand but if parents in the maintained sector vote to remove the schools in whole or in part from the national curriculum — not at the wish of the teachers, the head teachers, the governors or the ILEA — the Government will not give them that freedom. The Government argue that the Bill is all about freedom, but they display clearly that that standard does not bear up to close examination.

Mr. Rowe: The presence of the hon. Gentleman in the House shows clearly that he comes from an untypical part of the country. In my part of the country I have held meetings with the heads and governors of schools and have also addressed the Kent Association of Parent-Teacher Associations. Support for the national curriculum is widespread and is tempered only by an anxiety that it may be too rigorously and rigidly enforced.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall deal with it in a moment. There is support for the concept of a national curriculum. I support it, as does the Labour party. There is genuine consensus on the matter, but the hon. Gentleman should not believe that there is consensus for the restrictive and narrow national curriculum, fed by dogma, that would be imposed on us by the Bill.
After long hours of debate with the Secretary of State, for the first time I feel a little sorry for him. He is in a highly precarious position. He is doing his best to steer a course between the good sense to which I believe he subscribes and the dogma that drives him from behind. As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said, only last weekend the Centre for Policy Studies—the voice of the Conservative party—said that the national curriculum should be much more restrictive than the Secretary of State wants. The Minister of State who will reply to the debate, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), is the Prime Minister's commissar, foisted upon the Secretary of State to ensure that he preserves his ideological purity. We all know that.
I feel sorry for the Secretary of State because I know that, during the next three or four months, the ground will be subtly cut away from under his feet on the issue of the national curriculum. He will scramble back — his footwork is fast enough to do it—from the edge of the precipice to keep his feet firmly on a route to Downing street. But we shall watch the ground being cut away little by little, just as it has been in relation to other aspects of the Bill. It has happened with testing and with the Inner London education authority, and it will happen with the national curriculum. The Centre for Policy Studies has voiced the views and wishes of the Prime Minister. She will have her way, and the Secretary of State will be in an increasingly precarious position.
There is consensus among parents for a national curriculum. Indeed, most people who comment on such matters believe that a de facto national curriculum already exists, at least up to the age of 14. In an interesting


intervention, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Kellett-Bowman) said that such a national curriculum exists in schools in her constituency. If the Secretary of State said, "We want a structure which will allow us, by issuing Department guidelines or by the many other means at our disposal, to encourage good practice and ensure a strong system," I would fully support him, but to lay down a national curriculum which can be altered only by Parliament is bound to place an inflexible structure on education which will damage it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman said that it is generally agreed that, up to the age of 14, there is a national curriculum. That may be true for most pupils in secondary schools, but it is not true for many children in the remedial stfeams of secondary schools—not statemented children or those in special schools—who are given a mish-mash diet of English and maths and lose out on the distinctive subjects which their fellow students enjoy. The national curriculum will help those students.

Mr. Ashdown: Those are important exceptions, but I ask the hon. Gentleman whether we should introduce a mechanism to solve the problems of a recalcitrant minority in a way that disadvantages the whole. I would argue not. For example, a national curriculum as constructed in the Bill would damage primary education terribly. With good reason, our primary sector is renowned throughout the world. It is probably at the forefront of primary education and is regarded by other nations as a model. That is because of the experimentation, innovation and development that is going on. But most of that experimentation and innovation will be brought to a cluttering halt by the imposition of a series of inflexible standards.
As we approach a period of change even greater than that which we have experienced until now, we cannot predict what will be required of the British educational system in the mid-1990s. We should encourage innovation and experimentation. Instead, we have a framework for a national curriculum which, far from being responsive to the needs of the day, can he altered only by Parliament. That cannot be sensible for our future education, nor can it be good for democracy—which, in a way, worries me even more.
Is it a good idea to put in place a national curriculum to overcome some of the lunacies of extreme Left-wing councils which would give a future Government—perhaps a Labour one—the power to dictate what happens in our schools? We know that the Secretary of State will not abuse the powers, but can we say honestly that those who follow him will not abuse them? I cannot say that, and Conservative Members cannot, with good conscience, say it either.
We should not look only to the future and make predictions. We should also cast an eye on the past, because such things have happened before. In 1904, Robert Morant tried to prescribe a national curriculum for secondary schools. His timetable set aside seven and half hours a week for mathematics and science, four and half hours for English, geography and history, and three and half hours for a language. There is some resemblance between that and the present position. But the proposal was a complete fiasco, and Morant himself was dropped in 1911. In a memorandum on school teachers that could have come from this Government, he referred to school teachers as

uncultured and imperfectly educated … . creatures of tradition and routine.
Even further back, the Bryce report of 1895 came to this conclusion:
Education is a thing too intimately concerned with individual preference and private life for it to be desirable to throw the whole of it under Government control. It needs organisation, but it would be destroyed by uniformity; it is stimulated by inspection, but it could be crushed by a code.
Even before that, in 1862, Robert Lowe tried to establish a code of teaching and payment by results, but it was highly discredited and it failed.
The proposed national curriculum will not only damage education in the future but is a threat to pluralism in our democracy.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman said that a national curriculum would be a threat to pluralism, but the essential point of the debate is that the ability of the independent sector to be independent is a mark of pluralism which the hon. Gentleman seems happy to destroy.

Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman takes me nicely on to my next point. The independent sector will be free to opt out of the national curriculum, if parents wish it. I do not want the independent sector to be brought within the enforced national curriculum of the maintained sector. I want the maintained sector to have similar freedom. I want to encourage pluralism—not to crush the independent sector under the national curriculum, but to give the maintained sector the freedom, which the Government say is at the heart of the Bill, to opt out should parents wish it. How can the Government argue in favour of parental choice and power and deny parents in the maintained sector the right to take that route? The fact that they do so exposes their double standards.
The Government's underpinning motive is grubby and discreditable. It is to place a different standard on "our people" in the state sector. Here I return to the words of Robert Lowe, which are extremely interesting. In his booklet "Primary and Classical Education", published in 1867 shortly after publication of the revised code or 1862, he said:
I do not think it is any part of the duty of the Government to prescribe what people should learn, except in the case of the poor, where time is so limited that we must fix upon a few elementary subjects to get anything done at all … The lower classes ought to be educated to discharge the duties cast upon them. They should also be educated that they may appreciate and defer to a higher cultivation when they meet it, and the higher classes ought to be educated in a very different manner, in order that they may exhibit to the lower classes that higher education to which, if it were shown to them, they would bow down and defer".
Those words should ring in our ears as we understand the Government's motives for their squalid, distasteful double standards.

5 pm

Mr. John Maples: I may not be right, but I think that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has just quoted a Minister in a Liberal or Whig-Liberal Government. To have to dredge 120 years into history to criticise what this Government are doing demonstrates the thinness of his argument.
I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and I apologise in advance if I go over some old ground. The Committee proceedings went on for so long that some ground must have been gone over several times already. I am


wholeheartedly in favour of the Government's proposals, not because they are intended to raise standards but because I believe that they will raise standards of education and achievement, because of the two planks that I perceive in the policy. The first is creating some diversity among schools, a subject that we shall deal with in a debate later this evening. The second directly affects standards by means of the curriculum and testing, which are vital if we are to achieve higher standards. I agree with those who say that we must not put education in a straitjacket. That is not what the proposals will do. However, the present system is too free. There may be good practices in some educational authorities, but there are weak ones in others.
I want to give a few examples of the evidence, many of which come from my education authority—ILEA. ILEA is Labour educational policy writ large and one is entitled to use examples from it to show why so many Conservative Members are concerned about what is happening. After attending 200 science lessons in ILEA, HMI rated 40 per cent. as less than satisfactory and 15 per cent. as unbelievably bad. That is in an authority that spends a great deal of money on providing education, yet the standard of its science classes, which are so vital to our future, is apparently weak.
A recent survey of mathematics standards showed that the performance of pupils between 1964 and the mid-1980s had fallen at a time when nothing could have been more important than the mathematical skills that we need in a computer age. In Germany, 90 per cent. of 16-year-olds leave school with a higher school certificate in mathematics, German, a foreign language and two other subjects—five subjects in all. In England, fewer than 40 per cent. of school leavers manage to achieve the same standards. More than 20 per cent. of 16-year-olds leave three of the seven secondary schools in my constituency without one exam pass at CSE or GCE. In only one school did more than 15 per cent. of the pupils obtain five CSEs or GCEs. That is a serious problem to face. One can make all sorts of excuses about difficulties in inner cities but the fact remains that in only one of the seven schools in my constituency did more than 15 per cent. of 16-year-olds get five passes at GCE or CSE.
I have one or two other pieces of evidence. Of band 1 children in ILEA—the 25 per cent. who are supposedly the most able—only a third end up getting five O-levels or CSEs at 16. Another recent survey showed that 6 million adults have literacy or numeracy problems in adult life, which is compelling evidence of the problem with the standards being achieved in education. Our system is failing far too many children.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the CSE exam was introduced on the criterion that it should apply only to the top 70 per cent. of children and that it was not designed for the least able 30 per cent? It is therefore a little hard to criticise a local authority in which 20 per cent. get nothing, when the exam was not designed to cater for those children.

Mr. Maples: I understand that. My point was that in only one of the seven schools in my constituency did 15 per cent. get five passes. Only one third of band 1 children get passes. If 70 per cent. of children were obtaining 5 GCEs or CSEs there would be no problem, but fewer than 15 per cent. are getting them in most schools.
I offer one or two diagnoses of the problems. I do not pretend to know all the solutions, but there is some evidence that our education system has expectations that are too low in too many places. It fails to challenge or stretch enough children. I give an example from an article that appeared in a Sunday newspaper about a year and a half ago. It was written by Bel Mooney, who admits that the idea of sending her child to a private school would have been laughable before her experience:
I write as someone who laughed at the idea that I (of all people) would pay for my own children's schooling. But, as always, experience catches up with ideals and overtakes them. You realise this for the first time when your five-year-old comes home from primary school in the third term of his first year and to your motherly question, 'What did you do in school today, dear?' replies cheerfully, yet again, 'Oh, we played about with the Lego.' Time after time during that"—

Mr. Martin Flannery: What nonsense.

Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman does not like this, but it is exactly the sort of thing parents are worried about. He should listen to them, rather than the prejudices of his union.
To continue the quotation:
Time after time, during that year I went to his class teacher and even to the headmistress of that school in south London and asked why he was not learning to read. I was told, with earnest good will, that I must not seek to 'push' my son, and that (this said with great sadness) it was a common failing amongst achieving middle-class British parents.
She then decided to put her child into a private school that she admitted was not particularly good:
They tested him and said that on the basis of what he produced they would have classified him as backward, yet would still take him after Easter. I was warned that he would probably have to stay down a year in September. And? At the end of that one term he had caught up with the other boys sufficiently to move up with them. There was nothing wrong with my son's ability. It was just that he had been taught by woolly-minded ladies who believed that he was in a school to play creatively. In other words— my son had never been taught the basics.
I am aware that this is anecdotal evidence and I hope that the experience is not widespread. However, it motivated one well-known journalist to write an article in a Sunday newspaper and it expresses exactly the sort of worries that parents have. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) should not mock it.

Mr. Flannery: I am not mocking it. The hon. Gentleman reads out a letter and proceeds to generalise about the entire system on the basis of a five-year-old coming home from school and saying that he played with Lego. If the hon. Gentleman judges an education system, or life in general, on a single aspect such as that, heaven help us. That is prejudice gone wild.

Mr. Maples: It is one of about 10 pieces of evidence that I have given. It was not a letter—it was an article in a popular, widely read, quality Sunday newspaper, written by Bel Mooney, who is a well-respected English journalist and not a card-carrying Conservative, as far as I know. The hon. Gentleman did, indeed, mock it in the yahbooing fashion of Opposition Members. If he does not take the concerns of parents seriously, he is missing the point.

Mr. Flannery: I do not take the hon. Gentleman seriously.

Mr. Maples: The cause of all this is the weakness in trying to ensure that education is a meaningful experience for children. Education is not, to use my right hon. Friend's phrase, something that washes over one. It is not something to be experienced, like a swim or eating a good meal. It requires study, concentration and effort on the part of the pupils, and motivation and challenge on the part of their teachers. Too often, that has been missing. It is not the fault of teachers : we have a bad education system in England. For some reason one is a swot for working hard in school, and far too often parents take the attitude that it is not worth their children's while getting a good education. We must change that, too.
A great deal comes back to what is happening in schools. Targets, motivation, ensuring that children learn their basics, and the ability to discover which children are not reaching certain standards, so that they can then be helped, should all be greatly facilitated by the national curriculum and testing. The new system will also set standards for teachers. The end result should be that pupils leave school with the skills that they need in their working lives in a world that is increasingly demanding more skills.
One of the main criticisms of the Bill is that it will be bad for children because it will make those performing less well feel inferior. That is dangerous nonsense. Children in a school know who is and who is not working hard; they know who is and who is not achieving. It is not fair on those who work hard not to demonstrate their success, any more than it is fair on those who do not achieve not to discover that they either need to try harder or that they need additional help. Parents are entitled to know how well their children are doing and whether they are reaching the desired standards in reading, mathematics and science. If they are, that is fine, but if they are not we must help them to reach those standards.
Those who criticise the proposals should consider a few other points. For example, is not testing part of the way that music is taught? Grades in music are objective tests, and the pupil must pass one before he can move on to the next. I have heard no one criticise that on the ground that it would make a child who could not pass grade 2 on his flute or piano feel inferior to fellow pupils who passed that grade.
It is interesting to note that the Inner London education authority, which finds little that is good in the Government's proposals, recently put forward proposals for regular reading tests to monitor the reading performance of children in its schools. It is amazing that it has taken ILEA so long to recognise the importance of reading in the curriculum. The ILEA press release refers to regular reading tests and a regular record of a child's achievement, which is very much what the Government are proposing. The chairman of the schools sub-committee said:
The new measures will do much to raise standards and improve quality in Inner London schools. They will ensure that the progress of every child is systematically charted and that no child's needs are overlooked.
It is extraordinary that such a statement should come from ILEA, although I could not agree with it more. It should have followed that line many years ago. Yet the same people who now propose that system for ILEA criticise the Government's proposals and say that they are a dangerous departure, and those sentiments are echoed from the Opposition Benches.
An article by John Rae in The Independent on Monday shows the weakness of our attitude and the need for more robustness in the standards that we expect from our children. He reports a conversation with an official in a Japanese teacher's union:
'Slow learner?'. The official from the Japanese teachers' union looked puzzled. Then he thought he understood what his western visitor was driving at 'You mean child not try harder.'
There appears to be an ethic in education that it is bad to push children who are not doing well, yet often that is exactly what they need. It is not that their education ability is any less than that of their fellow pupils. We use that excuse too often as an alibi for the failure of children. I am not concerned about what our education system provides for bright children — they do all right. However, I am concerned that far too many average children are not reaching standards that they could reach were a little more attention paid to them and a little more pressure put on them. We are failing too many such children, and that failure is dangerous for our economy because we live in an increasingly competitive world where higher and higher levels of technical skill and ability are needed and fewer and fewer unskilled jobs are available.
Above all, the present system fails children as individuals; it fails to help them to develop their abilities and talents to the maximum so that they can enjoy the full range of their intellectual abilities, whatever they may be, in their life and in their work. We need to develop an ethic in education among teachers, parents and pupils that motivates children and ensures achievement. I believe that the Government's proposals will do just that.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Marples) because, in many ways, he articulated very skilfully the great unease about education felt by people throughout the country. He quoted what I believe is art exceptional case of a Sunday newspaper columnist, and then suggested that that reflected a level of unease which justified the introduction of the Bill.
I had 14 years experience of the classroom before I came to the House. Unlike the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), who is also a teacher, I did not have the opportunity to chair an education committee. I taught pupils of all levels of ability and with a variety of gifts. They were not entirely academic pupils, although taught O-level. I was also responsible for the development of children throughout their school lives — something beyond the curriculum and the school syllabus. Education is a total experience that goes beyond testable knowledge, important though that may be. It covers not only the classroom, but extends to so-called out-of-school activities.
5.15 pm
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West spoke about ethos in schools, the general sense of team work and the cohesiveness of the staff rooms, but all that was destroyed by the noble Lord Joseph. Of course everything is not right in education. I was a geography teacher and I wanted to teach night and day. I criticised my mathematics colleagues because they did not provide a mathematical breakdown and I wanted them to do certain calculations. I accept that I might be a little trad in that sense. If these matters are to be dealt with effectively in the classrooms between professional teachers, the Secretary of State must not introduce laws telling us what to do.
I do not claim for a moment that this is a matter only for the professionals, because they are accountable to other teachers, to parents and to governors. The sort of instances related by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, should have been taken up by the parentzgovernors, discussed with teachers and a reasonable solution found. I do not come down in favour of either side of the argument about trendy teaching, and I understand why some people are uneasy. Yet the Secretary of State, in a way typical of this Government, has focused on a particular concern and said, quite illogically, "We must legislate" — and how. He is introducing into law the most authoritarian structure of education that this country has ever experienced — something that, 20 years ago, people would not have thought possible.
Perhaps our education system has gone too far in the other direction. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to certain people who have passed into history, when the secret garden was the curriculum. The system opened out in the 1960s. The problem is that there was never a secondary rationale. GCSE is a hybrid born of 0-level and CSE, which in themselves were inadequate. Difficulties are inbred in the educational system. However, the Government's proposals will not do the trick. They will not provide a consensus; they will not provide the sort of curriculum that our young people need.
Clause 5 provides, in effect, that no school can teach courses other than those laid down by bodies that the Secretary of State approves under clause 7. I do not wish to trespass too far into a later debate, but the national curriculum may be put into the shade by the content of the syllabuses for the examinations arbitrarily laid down under clause 7 by order of the Secretary of State.
I do not necessarily say that the old 0-level examination, or any other examination, was the last word. I had grave arguments with London university about the 0-level geography syllabus. The nabobs of London university, with whom I claim equality as a professional geographer, believed it right that a pupil taking the 0-level geography examination should not have detailed original knowledge of those parts generally referred to as the Third world. The London university people believed that such a person could pass the course with knowledge of the regional geography of only north America and Europe. I said that that was educationally irresponsible. As a Member of Parliament, I thought that it was wrong. They took no notice and went blithely on their way, as they had a right to do.
If that attitude could be taken independently by a prestigious London university, in the light of all the debate that occurs in the educational world, what would happen if an equivalent decision arose, which was given the imprimatur of the Secretary of State? I should be in trouble with the law if my school were "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" by the syllabus, pressure of time and need to provide certain courses for the less bright pupils and I, as a professional, thought that students should follow a course which I thought was necessary for world citizenship.
It is not long since a headmaster of an elementary school, even in the London county council, could have been breaking the law if he taught his pupils French. Until 1944, elementary education was confined by statute to ideas similar to those of Robert Lowe, who said of his revised code, that if it would not be cheap, it would be

efficient and if it was not efficient, it would be cheap. That was a narrow form of education for the hewers of wood and drawers of water. Thirty years ago I did as all students do and took up the current issues. We were all concerned with the Bantu education Act. The Eiselen report of the South African Government introduced Bantu education for the hewers of wood and the drawers of water.
The Minister of State smiles. She would say that any comparison between that wretched Act and this Bill is not on. It might not be on in terms of content, but it is in terms of authority. The Conservative party is dedicated to the destruction of the state and the reduction of state interference in personal lives where that is thought unnecessary. The Education Reform Bill, with all its clauses, provides for detailed administrative intervention in the process of education which has evolved, albeit in fits and starts, since 1944. This is massive interventionism.
I fear that the imposition of the national curriculum, which is inadequately described — I have tabled an amendment on this point, which will not be called because it is not regarded as relevant, although I claim that it is—will create administrative difficulty in schools. There will be difficulties in terms of the activity of the new National Curriculum Council and the new School Examinations and Assessment Council. How they will match up, heaven only knows. I am not talking from lack of experience. I gave evidence on these matters to the Newsom inquiry. The issue was dodged then, and it is still being dodged.
The difficulties which will ensue from the national curriculum will be in addition to the difficulties that exist now due to the too-hurried imposition of the GCSE. How will the GCSE, which will take another five years to settle down, mix with the Bill? The Bill is not only an ineffective and dangerous hybrid but creates a difficulty in that we must try and match up the GCSE flowering plant. There will be problems in all schools that are subject to the national curriculum.
The Secretary of State says that the problems will not be great. I suggest that they will arise irrespective of finance, although there will not be much of that from this Government. The problems will be in addition to the shortage of teachers and skills, which will create even greater difficulty in the so-called state schools. Some people will have no difficulty in persuading parents and those with proper aspirations for their pupils that if children go to state schools which have state teachers who operate a state curriculum, ordered by the Secretary of State, that will somehow be second-rate.
Certain independent schools may, rightly or wrongly —mostly wrongly—be given a boost. This may be an unintended effect of the Bill, but it is almost inevitable. The only proper way out is for the Secretary of State to accept the amendment or — this is the much more constructive approach — to tackle properly and professionally the problems that have been articulated by Conservative Members, rightly or wrongly, with or without exaggeration.
We cannot make people learn. We cannot fill them up like pots and expect them to disgorge knowledge. Important though that is, it is only part of education. The Government want us to do that, but there will be complications and difficulties for the professional teachers in front of classes. We cannot get people to learn just because we want them to do so. It is not like the Prime Minister getting Conservative Members to vote. There


must be a sense of offering, motivation, great subtlety and care. The Bill will make all that much more difficult. That is why it fails and why the amendment should be passed.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: It is remarkable to hear the Opposition attack the concept of the national curriculum on the ground of pluralism and say how unpopular it was. I shall show of how popular it was. In reply to the Government, the Labour party in Birmingham —which, sadly, is in control there—said that it agreed that a national curriculum was necessary to lay down a framework within which children could learn.
Equally, the Opposition ignore the evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate. HMI reports, especially those over the past 10 years, have referred to the low expectations of teachers for their pupils. The reports mention the 14 per cent. of children who leave school without any qualifications. They say that variations in standards in schools depend primarily not on socio-economic factors but on the fact that in many local education authorities there is no clearly laid down and defined curriculum for each subject.
The HMI has estimated that two thirds of LEAs do not have properly laid down curriculum guidelines for their schools. Therefore, there is a danger of teachers in certain schools reinventing the wheel. There is a lack of parental confidence in the schools' objectives. Difficulties are caused for the one quarter of schoolchildren who switch between schools during their school careers, and expectations are lowered.
One of the Sunday newspapers contained an update on an inquiry which has been going on for the past seven years into 50 schools within the Inner London education authority, taking into account 2,000 children. I understand that Professor Mortimore, who wrote the update, used to be an adviser in ILEA. [Interruption.] He was the head of statistics within ILEA. Professor Mortimore found that the quality of school was more significant than socioeconomic factors, age or other background as an effective determinant of school performance. For example, in reading, it was four times as significant as socio-economic factors and in mathematics 10 times as significant.
Professor Mortimore quoted, with some approval, the comments of David Hargreaves, who I understand is ILEA's chief adviser. Referring to pupils, Professor Mortimore said:
Too many teachers excuse lack of achievement by focusing on their problems.
He was referring to their home problems. The report said that what was needed was a sense of mission, laid down by the head teacher. It said that a clear and disciplined framework was needed within which children should be taught every subject in the schools. That may seem an old-fashioned teaching approach but, in practice, it was found in ILEA schools to be the most effective one. The national curriculum seeks to lay down such a framework on a national scale.
Secondly, the report of the task group on assessment and testing was cited approvingly by a number of hon. Members in Committee. That report says clearly that assessment is inevitably part of the national curriculum:
When assessment and testing are carefully aligned to the curriculum, as in Graded Assessment Schemes, one of the outstanding benefits that teachers report is the enhanced motivation of pupils.
The report went on to say that such arrangements also increased teachers' confidence in their professional

development. We cannot have a graded and sensible system of assessment as laid down in the TGAT report unless we set it in the framework of the national curriculum provided by the Bill.
Thirdly, every European country of any size or significance has a national curriculum. Moreover, other countries lay down a detailed timetable for each subject in that curriculum. I recently attended an education conference in Vienna, at which we talked about the various curricula of schools. Questions were asked about how much of the school timetable was taken by the mother tongue, mathematics or science.
I was the only person at conference who, much to the mirth of my fellow participants, had to keep saying, "It varies; it depends on where you are; it depends on the school to which you are referring." The other participants did not believe that a responsible Government—

Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman gives an interesting account of the conference that he attended and argues the case for a national curriculum. Does he intend to develop that argument by voting for our amendment to extend the provision to independent schools?

Mr. Coombs: Opposition Members seem to be moving away from the idea of supporting a national curriculum on the ground that it creates a straitjacket that should not be countenanced in a pluralist system of education. I argue that other countries throughout Europe lay down clearly not only a national curriculum but a timetable allocating time to each subject. As a result, many countries — particularly Germany and Japan — are achieving standards in science and mathematics on average equivalent to those achieved by only a quarter of our best pupils.
Another recent report on international scientific standards shows that Britain, which ought to be leading the field, comes 11th or 12th out of 15 countries in the standards achieved by 14-year-olds in scientific subjects. That is not satisfactory. Appalling standards such as that are not good enough for a country of our stature.
The national curriculum will lay down a framework in which teachers will know what is expected of them -they will know the objectives to which they are expected to teach. That will provide the certainty necessary to the achievement of a good set of standards for education.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I shall not follow the hon. Member for 'Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) in his plea for greater rigidity in the curriculum, and I suspect that it will arouse little sympathy among parents around the country.
I propose to spend two minutes asking the Minister of State whether she will address herself to the position of the arts in the national curriculum. The Bill represents a real danger to arts education. The foundation subjects are described as "music and art" rather than "the arts". I suspect that the Minister will define "art" as fine art. Therefore, the foundation subjects include only two art subjects. I fear that that will endanger other art forms in schools, such as dance, drama, film, video, photography and media studies. It will also endanger the small but growing number of very fine creative arts departments that are beginning to be established in some high schools.
I am sure that the Minister of State is only too well aware of the impact that dance education has had in the


past 10 years. Fostered by the Arts Council and some very enlightened education authorities, it has been responsible for creating an entirely new audience for dance—a very young audience across the country. It has been fostered by experiments such as the Dance Umbrella and has created audiences for the work of the Janet Smith group and others. The process has been engendered by the work of dance animateurs such as Veronica Lewis of the Arts Council with her Gulbenkian fellowship.
5.30 pm
Dance has also done much for equality in education. Boys have been encouraged to dance with girls, and that has broken down some of the rigid gender patterns in education. I fear that such developments in dance—and indeed drama—will be put at risk by the Bill because the subjects are excluded from the national curriculum and will presumably have to take their chance in whatever percentage of the school week is not included in the national curriculum.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) mentioned the importance of experimentation in relation to primary schools. Nowhere is experimentation more important than in arts education. Because arts education is a new and young branch of education, it is growing and changing all the time. Many high schools hardly have any arts education at all; others have very developed creative arts departments. However, all of them are experimenting. New forms such as film, video and media studies often capture the imagination of young people and are extremely satisfying to teach. They allow a whole variety of skills, interests and relationships to be explored in a way that is often extremely difficult in the classroom. Such pluralism and variety in education, which is most important, will be put at risk by the rigid and limited definition of the arts in the national curriculum.
The Minister of State will recall the Gulbenkian report on the arts in schools. That report made a plea not only for a wide range of arts provision in schools but for interdisciplinary methods in arts education. The report recognised that arts education goes to the core of education as a whole because it encourages and stimulates young people to think for themselves, express themselves and find a voice for themselves. It helps them to have confidence in putting their point of view and in relating to others. Those are the things — difficult for teachers to achieve in the classroom—that arts education does so well. A rigid definition including music and fine art alone could mean that many of those things will be lost.
The tragedy is that arts education, which is developing so well, is not widespread. As I said, many high schools have very limited arts departments. The national curriculum, about which I have many reservations, could have given us a chance to ensure that arts education made its presence felt and could make its proper contribution. Sadly, the Government did not take that opportunity. Instead, I fear that they will actually limit arts education.
It is still not too late. In another place, the Government could substitute the words "the arts" for "music and art" and allow schools to find their own way of interpreting them. Indeed, I hope that the work of the inspector would encourage the growth of interdisciplinary creative arts departments, which are put at risk by the rigid definition in the Bill.
Alternatively, the Government could consider amendment No. 443 and establish an arts education council that could co-ordinate and set standards in arts education and disseminate the good practice already in evidence throughout the country. The Secretary of State has an interest in literature; indeed, he has published anthologies of poetry. It is sad to think that by this narrow and rigid view of the arts—ignoring so much of the work that is happening—he will be setting arts education back. That is a tragedy.
While the Secretary of State can list the subjects and establish a national curriculum, he cannot make that list of subjects into an education. An education is something more wide-ranging, more intangible, and more important than the list of subjects in the Bill. The Secretary of State knows that. He knows that the arts have an invaluable part to play in finding a wider range of education. By limiting the arts solely to fine arts and music, I am afraid he is missing a great opportunity and is setting back education, particularly arts education.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I reject the idea that the national curriculum is somehow an infliction or imposition on pupils in maintained schools. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that the word "imposition" is an amazing one coming from Opposition Members who claim, among other things, that they are in favour of some form of national curriculum.
Several people who belong to parties other than my own have said that the national curriculum was inevitable and that it was something that the country needed in order to bring a sense of rigour and purpose into our education system. Therefore, it is a positive and not a negative innovation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is bringing forward in his Education Reform Bill. Its objective is to guarantee all pupils in maintained schools a broadly based and balanced curriculum that will prepare them for adult life.
I had a growing concern as I listened to the debate being developed by Opposition Members. I began to feel that they were almost complacent with the position as it is now. They seem to believe that schools are delivering the things that my right hon. Friend and I are seeking to do in the Bill. They said, "We do not need to introduce a national curriculum because it is already there. There is a broad consensus of subjects being taught in schools, so why come along with this Bill and put the national curriculum into legislation?" The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) got very excited about that and suggested that putting the provision for a national curriculum into legislation would somehow be deleterious to what happens within schools.

Mr. Spearing: I am not against a broadly based consensus for a national curriculum. I am concerned that the legislation might tie down the syllabuses of examinations and courses to be taken in schools, as laid down by the Secretary of State, so that they cannot be changed even by governors. It is the combination of the two that is so dangerous.

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I have to explain that the syllabuses will be determined through the National Curriculum Council and the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council and


will be brought to Parliament for examination under the parliamentary processes. There could hardly be any more protection than that provided in the Bill.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister justifies her Bill by saying that the schools are not providing the curriculum that parents now want. Can she tell the House which of the core or foundation subjects are not being taught in our high schools now?

Mrs. Rumbold: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). He pointed out that an HMI inspection in his constituency showed that science teaching, which is one of the three core subjects for secondary schools, was appalling.
It is extremely important that one levers up the standard and that one sets a clear curriculum and clear syllabuses so that teachers are able to ensure that the students cover the scientific courses and that they are tested at regular ages so that their standards can be levered up. That is the way in which the national curriculum, the core and foundation subjects, will help the youngsters in our schools. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central genuinely wants to see improvements in the standards in our schools.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister of State answered the point by saying that clause 3(3) will address the quality of education which was referred to by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). Clause 3 simply specifies number and type of subjects. Nothing in clause 3 will improve the quality of education and there is no way in which she has answered the point I put to her about which of the subjects is not being taught in our high schools now.

Mrs. Rumbold: I have to continue to say to the hon. Gentleman that this is the first time that we have ever put together in a reform Bill a clear set of subjects that we want all children to study. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that not all children study all subjects that are set down in our Education Reform Bill. There is a raft of evidence to show that large numbers of children leave school without having studied many of the foundation or core subjects. [Interruption.]
I have to tell the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who is intervening from a sedentary position, that the school that he attended may have offered all children the sort of curriculum that we are offering now to children in the maintained sector. I know that the hon. Gentleman attended a school in the independent sector, because it is well recorded. It is extremely important that we lift the opportunity for 93 per cent. of our children to have the broad education that he experienced.

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister has tried to shift the ground of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). She talked about standards and appalling provision, and we are all concerned about that. My hon. Friend asked which local authorities and which secondary schools are not providing the subjects referred to in the Bill and in the national curriculum. If the Minister cannot answer that now, will she provide the list in a letter?

Mrs. Rumbold: No, I will certainly not provide any such list in a letter. The majority of local education authorities somewhere or other in the country will be providing some

of those subjects. The point is that the children will not be studying them. That is one of the difficulties we have been experiencing within the curriculum. It is one of the reasons why, after a great deal of debate, we have come to the conclusion that it is important to set out some criteria and some curriculum, foundation and core subjects, that will offer all pupils the opportunity of raising their attainments and of performing to the best of their capability, thus levering up the standards in our maintained schools.
I believed, obviously wrongly, that Opposition Members shared those objectives with us. Therefore, I am surprised to hear them run the age-worn argument that we are inflicting something on maintained schools which their children attend but leaving alone the schools that some people—a small percentage—choose for their children in the independent sector.
Perhaps it is possible that Opposition Members do not want pupils in the schools to which they send their children to reach the highest attainments. I cannot believe that. I cannot believe that they do not want to improve standards across the whole spectrum in the maintained sector. I want to believe that they want all pupils in the maintained schools to be guaranteed a balanced and broadly based curriculum in order to equip them for the multiplicity of opportunities and challenges that they will face in adult life.

Mr. Jack Straw: The Minister knows very well from all the debates we have had that we entirely endorse those objectives. However, if it is a national curriculum and not a state curriculum, why should it apply to my children but not to Cabinet Ministers' children?

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall come to that in a moment. I want to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.

Mr. Fisher: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall answer the points raised and then return to the subject of independent schools, because I am happy to answer that.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central raised an important point about the teaching of arts. He was concerned that art and music were the two subjects mentioned in the Bill. He went on to explain how important it is that art and music and the arts concept should be broader.
In our national curriculum there will be ample room for all children to participate in the other arts that he described so well. The national curriculum is expected to take up to about 70 per cent. of a child's time, and the other 30 per cent. of time will enable children to pursue other things such as dance and drama. There is no intention of confining arts to the fine arts. That is because guidelines will be expected to cover the creative and the performing arts, including dance where that is appropriate. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, dance is an important part of physical education.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Scott) was rightly proud of what happens in the schools in his constituency. They have a fine record of arts bias. One of the great successes of our schools is the way in which art and music have been developed. The hon. Member for Wigan asked for a reassurance that they will be allowed to continue in that way. There is no reason why the schools that are successful in the arts should not be able to continue to pursue them.

Mr. Flannery: I should like to ask a question about special needs and the curriculum. The hon. Lady will tell us why the national curriculum will not extend to private education. In Committee we tabled amendment No. 66 to try to waive to some degree the national curriculum in relation to the 18 per cent. of children with special needs who were not statemented, but we made no headway with the amendment. We wanted it partially waived because, although it is totally waived for children in private schools, all head teachers would want to waive the curriculum in order to give some teaching in special subjects that are not in the curriculum.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am a little surprised at the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) raising this matter, because we spent some time yesterday discussing it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said quite clearly that there would be considerable flexibility in relation to children with special needs and special schools. We are offering benefits to pupils in maintained schools because by not imposing penalties we are guaranteeing them the freedom of a broadly based education. That will enable them to make the most of their abilities and they will have real choices about the pattern of their adult lives. We are offering parents the information they need about the performance of schools in their area so that when it comes to choosing a school they will know how each school is doing by its pupils.
The Opposition and, in particular, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) were concerned about primary education. The hon. Member for Yeovil said he thought that the national curriculum would constrain primary education. I do not agree. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) spoke about small schools in rural areas. He said that there would be some concern about whether it would be possible to deliver the national curriculum in those schools. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who said that some of the very small rural schools provide the best of education. Certainly they will be quite capable from day one of providing from the national curriculum the education that pupils will need.
The hon. Member for Yeovil quoted the case of Sir Robert Morant. He was the permanent secretary to the Board of Education and his views on teachers were leaked in a brown envelope. Sadly, that led to his enforced resignation in 1911. I am sure that the House is happy that the hon. Member for Yeovil asked about that.
The Opposition ask why we do not offer the pupils of independent schools and their parents all the benefits that we are offering children in maintained schools. I am glad to see that the Opposition are now so solicitous about the quality of the education that is provided by independent schools. Sadly, that was not the case in 1978, when they withdrew the system of recognition as efficient.
That was a pity, because one of the protections for the independent schools is that we send our inspectorate into them. The main feature about independent schools is that they are independent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) was right when he said that the Government's responsibility is to ensure that the schools that are maintained by public money offer the education that pupils need.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: May I be encouraged by my hon. Friend's last words to expect recognition to be restored?

Mrs. Rumbold: I note my hon. Friend's intervention. The discipline on independent schools is largely that of market forces. Parents are free to send their children to them if they wish, and that is a fundamental freedom. They will do so only if the education offered by independent schools is what they want for their children. That is the discipline of market forces, and it is a real discipline.

Mr. Straw: We understand the Minister's argument, even if we do not altogether agree with it—that parents should be free to choose the type of education they want for their children. What happens if they cannot afford to buy their way into education?

Mrs. Rumbold: That is exactly what the Bill is about. It is about introducing opportunities for choice within the state sector and for state schools to compete with each other and to offer children and parents the highest standards. That is an extremely worthy ambition, but there may well be a need and a place for an independent sector that people may choose if that is what they want for their children.
The benefits of the national curriculum are increasingly being achieved in maintained schools. Moreover, representatives of the independent schools have been to see me to say that they are very interested in what is happening under the national curriculum. They recognise that we frequently have cross-traffic between the independent sector and the maintained sector. Therefore, it is important for the independent schools to take that on board and note what is happening in the maintained schools so that this cross-traffic may continue.

Mr. Ashdown: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, because I know that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central wishes to come in.
The less good independent schools will have to make changes if competition from the maintained schools is not to drive them out of business. That is the best guarantee that, when the Bill ultimately succeeds in making the maintained schools so good, the independent schools will be quick to spot it. They will then spur themselves to look not only at the content of the national curriculum, but also at the kind of competition that they will face because of improvements in the maintained sector.
That is not to say that any privately funded body should be compelled by my right hon. Friend to run its schools in a certain way. His only compulsion in that regard is where the education is deemed by his inspectorate not to be efficient and effective. I do not accept the amendment.

Mr. Fatchett: The reply by the Minister of State was confused, even by her normal standards. She tried to confuse and mislead the House by suggesting that the Labour party is against higher standards. Nothing could be further from the truth. She tried to suggest that the Labour party is not in favour of an agreed core curriculum, but it was Labour that put that proposal to the electorate last June. How can the Government say that, when during their period in office they have cut resources from central Government to education by 20 per cent. in real terms? If they believed in education, they would invest in it. The Minister's only response to the argument about the state curriculum is to incant the phrase that the schools "are independent." They are not


independent, because section 71 of the Education Ac,t 1944 allows the Secretary of State to supervise and control them.
We believe in a national curriculum; the Government believe in a state curriculum. We believe that there is a need to extend and to improve standards for all; the Government believe in privilege. The Bill is about privilege, and the Government are about privilege. The Minister would have done better if she had had the courage to tell the House the truth and say that all she was doing was defending privilege and the status quo. That is what the Tory party and the Government are about, which is why we shall divide the House on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 304.

Division No. 228]
[6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Duffy, A. E. P.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Alton, David
Eadie, Alexander


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eastham, Ken


Armstrong, Hilary
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Ashdown, Paddy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fatchett, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Flannery, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Foster, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Fraser, John


Bell, Stuart
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bermingham, Gerald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blair, Tony
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grocott, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Harman, Ms Harriet


Caborn, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim
Haynes, Frank


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hinchliffe, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Home Robertson, John


Cartwright, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howells, Geraint


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ingram, Adam


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Crowther, Stan
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cummings, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Dr John
Lamond, James


Dalyell, Tarn
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Darling, Alistair
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livingstone, Ken


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Livsey, Richard


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
McAllion, John


Dobson, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Douglas, Dick
Macdonald, Calum A.





McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Ruddock, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Salmond, Alex


McTaggart, Bob
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Strang, Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Murphy, Paul
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Nellist, Dave
Turner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William
Wall, Pat


O'Neill, Martin
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert N.


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pike, Peter L.
Wigley, Dafydd


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prescott, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn



Reid, Dr John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Richardson, Jo
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Frank Cook.


Rooker, Jeff



NOES


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Alexander, Richard
Buck, Sir Antony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Budgen, Nicholas


Allason, Rupert
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Amos, Alan
Butcher, John


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, Mr


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Conway, Derek


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cope, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cran, James


Bowis, John
Critchley, Julian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Devlin, Tim


Browne, John (Winchester)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Dicks, Terry






Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dover, Den
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Farr, Sir John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Franks, Cecil
McCrindle, Robert


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gardiner, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malins, Humfrey


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Hal


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, lain


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam,John
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayes, Jerry
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moss, Malcolm


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Richard


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunt, John (Ravensboume)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irvine, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Irving, Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Jackson, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Janman, Tim
Price, Sir David


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Redwood, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Kilfedder, James
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)





Rossi, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rost, Peter
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rowe, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ryder, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwioh N)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thorne, Neil


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thurnham, Peter


Scott, Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tracey, Richard


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tredinnick, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wood, Timothy


Stokes, John
Woodcock, Mike


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM

Sir Hugh Rossi: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 2, line 6, leave out from `comprises' to `specifies' and insert
`religious education and other core and foundation subjects and, with the exception of religious education'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 224, in page 2, line 6, leave out
`the core and foundation subjects'
and insert—
`religious education and other core and foundation subjects and, with the exception of religious education,'.
No. 25, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, after '(a)', insert `scripture'.
No. 22, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, after `technology', insert 'religious education,'.
No. 77, in clause 4, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
`(c) to arrange that within the provision of the national curriculum, there is flexibility and scope for the governors of voluntary schools to promote and develop the distinctive ethos and character of their schools'.
No. 76, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, at beginning insert—
'Save for religious education (the arrangements for which shall be as required by sections 25–30 and section 77 of the 1944 Education Act),'.
No. 367, in clause 6, page 4, line 35, at end insert—
'(3) It shall be the duty of each local education authority to establish and maintain a Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, in accordance with its powers under


Section 29(2) of the 1944 Act, in order to monitor and support the teaching of Religious Education in the Local Authority's area and act as a conduit for representations as provided for in Section 15 of this Act.'
No. 368, in clause 6, page 4, line 35, at end insert—
(3) It shall the duty of each local education authority to convene a statutory conference, when requested to do so by their Standing Advisory Council, for the purposes of paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 of that Act, and at least once every 12 years.'.
No. 369, in page 4, line 35, at end insert—
`(3) Each Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education shall annually produce a report for their parent local education authority.'.
No. 78, in clause 17, page 12, line 21, at end insert
'(11) This section shall not apply to an aided or special agreement school where the governors have published a figure of admissions which is less than the standard number in the interests of preserving the school's religious character'.
No. 79, in clause 19, page 14, line 49, at end insert
`or having regard in the case of an aided or special agreement school to the need to maintain its religious character and to the willingness and ability of the governors to meet the financial liabilities arising from the standard numbers'.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 75 to 79 which stand in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The purpose of amendment No. 75 is to establish religious education as a core or foundation subject but in such a way as to allow for differences in treatment from other core and foundation subjects. In particular, the amendment excludes religious education from the national machinery of attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of clause 2.
In place of those provisions, amendment No. 76 proposes that for county and controlled schools the existing arrangements laid down for religious education in sections 25 to 30 and section 77 of the Education Act 1944 shall continue. In other words, for those schools the character of religious education remains to be determined by locally established agreed syllabuses and for aided and special agreement schools by the governors and religious authorities who own or are in charge of the schools.
Amendment No. 77 requires that the governors of voluntary schools be able, within the national curriculum, to promote and develop the distinctive ethos and character of their schools. In other words, it asks for recognition that religious education is something more than a single timetable subject with a given number of school periods allocated for it. Its teaching should pervade and influence the entire syllabus.
6.15 pm
Amendments No. 78 and 79 in a sense follow naturally from that. They are offered in the alternative but with a common objective—the ability of governors of aided or special agreement schools to prevent the religious character of their schools from being changed by the statutory requirement to admit up to a standard number of pupils. In theory, under present legislation, the intake of such schools is governed by agreements between Church authorities and local education authorities. In fact, for reasons of their own, local education authorities have entered into relatively few such formal agreements, resulting in something of a stand-off situation.
The requirements in the Bill that schools should admit up to a standard number of pupils creates an entirely new

situation and would leave protection of the denominational character of Church schools to the good will of the local education authorities, which I hardly think was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when the Bill was drafted. Unamended, the Bill could place intolerable burdens on Church authorities to incur expenditure in maintaining places not required to meet the needs of their own communities. Amendment No. 79, in particular, seeks to take care of the question of financial burden.
Closely related to those questions is that of the possible change in character or ethos of voluntary schools and the difficulties that could arise for Church authorities seeking to maintain a viable network of schools for their communities as a whole if individual schools are able to withdraw too easily from the maintained sector. The Church authorities do not seek a right of veto, but they feel that the burden should be heavier than it is under the Bill, both with regard to the voting majority and the way in which it is calculated and with regard to the need to give due weight to the overall demands of the national education provision that they seek to make.
The last two matters are covered not by these amendments but by two amendments which unfortunately were not selected but which are part and parcel of the case in relation to the position of denominational schools in our educational system. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will spare a sentence or two to reply to those aspects
All these issues will be familiar to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the Church authorities have made their anxieties known widely and publicly but also personally to my right hon. Friend. There is thus no need for me to argue the merits of the case at great length. The fact that Opposition Members have tabled amendments in virtually identical terms shows the common source of my amendments and those in other names.

Mr. Straw: Divine intervention?

Sir Hugh Rossi: No one claims that, but it is clear that there is wide support throughout the Chamber for the proposals that I have put forward.
On the question of religious education, as I understand it there is no difference in principle between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Church authorities Indeed, he felt that he had done all that was necessary by leaving the provisions of the 1944 Act in place and strengthening them by the declaration in clause 1(2)(a) about
the spiritual, moral … and cultural development of pupils".
I believe that he said publicly that the Church authorities were being unduly anxious and that they had not followed through his real intent. It appeared that his overriding consideration was to avoid his own responsibility, either directly or through the lay councils, for the content of religious education, which would be the case if religious education were simply a core or foundation subject under clause 3.
The amendments have been framed in a particular way to avoid the Secretary of State having to assume that responsibility, which he does not want, and at the same time upgrading religious education as a subject in the education system. The Church authorities believe that by not including religious education as a core or foundation subject, the Bill is playing down its importance. Religious


education would be forced to compete with a range of optional subjects for limited classroom time and, in county schools, for resources. The Church authorities also feel that there is no effective means in the Bill of implementing the obligations that are carried over from the 1944 Act.
Perhaps of greatest importance to the Church authorities is their belief that religious education is not a single timetable subject, but the foundation of an entire educational process. If the values imparted by religious education are to be of importance and to be understood by pupils, they should pervade the whole of the syllabus, and inspire and unify every aspect of school life. In the light of that outlook, although clause 1(2)(a) appears to meet the requirement, the words "spiritual" and "moral … development" are not given any real substance in the Bill and rise little above the level of a pious platitude.
It is for that reason that I urge on my right hon. Friend these amendments concerning the content of religious education in schools, as a matter of great importance to the Church authorities and in accordance with principles with which he does not disagree, but which those outside the House feel are not given sufficient emphasis in the Bill as it is drawn at present. The object of the amendments is to try to give effect to an agreement that apparently already exists between my right hon. Friend and the Church authorities. I hope that if the wording proposed is not absolutely perfect in the way in which it is drafted or in the way in which the amendments are introduced, they nevertheless carry with them sufficient of the agreement that exists to enable my right hon. Friend to say that he accepts them, in principle, in the spirit in which they are being proposed.
The question of intake into schools is again extremely delicate. There is a real fear among the Church authorities about the requirement for standard numbers. They feel that there should be more in the Bill than there is at the moment to ensure that they can protect the character of their schools from being changed by their being obliged to take in pupils of different denominations, religions and faiths, or of their becoming financially responsible for the education of those to whom they do not have the same degree of responsibility as they have towards the children of the members of their Church.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will have given a sympathetic hearing to what has been said and that he does not make it necessary for me to seek to press the House to a Division on any of my amendments.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the amendments of his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) in the spirit in which they have been presented, and that he will especially bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's closing remarks about the problems of school admissions. I shall not say another word about that, because I have no doubt that the Secretary of State is now familiar with the problems that undoubtedly arise in our society through admissions to schools. I am sure that he will appreciate the need, as it is seen by a considerable section of our society, to preserve the character of certain schools.
I wish to speak directly to amendment No. 224 in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, which relates specifically to the place of religious education. It seeks to

establish religious education as a core subject, but to allow for the difference between its position and those of other core and foundation subjects. The amendment recognises that religious education need not be subject to the national machinery of assessment targets—it is hoped that the Secretary of State will accept that —or to programmes of study or assessment arrangements. Indeed, there is agreement with the Secretary of State that such criteria are unsuitable for religious education, the character of which is determined either by locally established agreed syllabuses for county and controlled schools or by the governors and religious authorities for aided and special agreement schools.
Without the sort of provision for which we are looking to the Secretary of State, religious education, formerly the sole compulsory subject, is left as a required subject but without any perceived status. What, in common estimation, confers status is not whether a subject is compulsory but whether it is seen to be of sufficient significance or importance to be within the core and foundation of what is to be studied. Moreover, status carries with it certain practical implications — for example, resources, availability of INSET training, encouragement to follow courses, and so on. I stress that without accepted status, religious education in county schools will be in great difficulties.
I should like to speak in a more personal vein and in the context of the schools with which I am most familiar but which I do not necessarily prize most — Catholic schools. Catholics believe that religious education is not one subject among many, but the foundation of the entire education process. They are not alone in seeking to base education on the knowledge of Christ and his teachings.
Such schools, which range across the denominations, have long been dedicated to the education of the whole person. Therefore, the curriculum is seen as all-embracing and providing for spiritual as well as aesthetic and creative development.
6.30 pm
However, those objectives do not apply exclusively to Catholic schools or to Christian schools. The beliefs and values that are sought through such a curriculum today inspire members of many faiths who similarly seek not only their expression but their unity through every aspect of school life. They believe, as I know from representations that I have received from them, that the Bill's preamble, which requires all schools to promote pupils' spiritual and moral development, is unlikely to be fulfilled unless the House endorses the amendment that was moved by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), I should like to urge upon the Government my amendments Nos. 367 and 369.
There must be few times in recent history when it has been more crucial to strengthen the spiritual and moral understanding and sense of self-responsibility that good religious education can bring. Nowadays, too often in our schools we hear of truancy at rates approaching 40 per cent. We hear from the Professional Association of Teachers of 80 per cent. of teachers who have been verbally abused by children and one third who have even been physically attacked. Too much emphasis is placed on television and fast food values. A survey of 15-year-olds in Cleveland only 12 months ago showed that no less than


two thirds thought that there was little or nothing wrong with acts of vandalism. Finally, there is a Government inquiry on school discipline. Plainly, we have a society that is looking for a spiritual and moral lead. Christian-based religious education should play an important role in giving that lead in our schools.
The fact that religious education needs strengthening is not in doubt. The Pope has said that in Catholic schools religious education is the core of the core curriculum. More generally, the Secretary of State said in Crawley on I1 December last year:
What the vast majority of children have been utterly starved of are the riches of the spirit. Their ignorance of the historic faith of this country, a faith which has inspired and guided so many of its greatest men and women, is a national disgrace".
That is despite the fact that sections 25 to 29 and schedule 5 to the 1944 Act gave a clear and unequivocal duty to local education authorities and ultimately the Secretary of State to teach religious education. Sadly, it must be said that the 1944 Act has been a cipher. It has failed schools and religious education. Sadly, its tenets have been practically ignored.
Let us look at the facts. Where religious education is taught, at the most it takes up one lesson a week. The religious education statistics bulletin for last year shows that 62 per cent. of fourth-year children and 58 per cent. of fifth-year children are not taught any religious education. There is a lack of specialist teachers of religious education and as a result a lack of pupils taking examinations. Too often in our schools religious education has degenerated into comparative religion and even into humanism. In another place, Baroness Cox called it
a kaleidoscope of shallow ideas about myriad belief systems".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1988; Vol. 493, c. 1456.]
It is not religious education at all.
It is significant that Mr. Mustapha, the chairman of the Moslem Teachers Association, went into a school that he was inspecting because he was an adviser and heard the head teacher say, "We do not mention Jesus in this school. We mention only God." Mr. Mustapha was so shocked that he went and told his imam. The next Saturday, in the central mosque in London one heard Moslems saying prayers to improve the respect for the place of Jesus Christ in British schools.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Inner London education authority the great religious emphasis this year is on the fact that it is the year of the dragon?

Mr. Coombs: Indeed I am. I could talk further about ILEA. It has the idea that "worship" is "worthyship", so it has more to do with community values than with religion. That gives one an idea of how wide of the mark the teaching of religious education has become in inner London schools.
In short, as the Association of Christian Teachers said, religious education
is safe in the Statute Book; it is not safe in the schools.
It is on the way that it achieves that jump from the statute book to schools that this Act of Parliament will be judged. Of course I appreciate that clause 1 refers to spiritual and moral development, and clause 6 refers to section 25(2) of the 1944 Act, although we should be talking about the

whole of section 25. Clause 15 establishes a specific complaints procedure of which religious education should be able to take advantage.
The Bill recognises the importance of religious education, but there are two major problems. The first is that if religious education is not a foundation subject, there is a danger that, in practice, because it will not be assessed and may therefore not be examined, it may be practically marginalised in schools. I admit that I find unconvincing the arguments against including religious education as a foundation subject, arguments which have recourse to the virtues of localism and worries about cutting across the degree syllabus in voluntary schools. I have tried to convince religious education teachers, but I have had to come to the conclusion that eventually we shall have a nationally agreed syllabus, which will be predominantly Christian-based, for religious education. Religious education teachers in our maintained schools will be able to agree on that.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he not appreciate that he identified one of the problems created by the 1944 Act when he quoted the instance of the head teacher saying that his school did not refer to Jesus Christ but referred to God? Yet in acknowledging the problems created by the agreed syllabus ethic, he seemed to suggest that we should maintain the milk-and-water, dilettante, nondescript pact that we have had since 1944.

Mr. Coombs: All that I am suggesting is that religious education should be predominant and Christian-based, but as with the Christian virtues, it should display tolerance and knowledge of other religious beliefs. That is containable within a nationally agreed syllabus and I believe that eventually we shall reach that position.
Given the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has moved an amendment that strengthens the position of religious education outside but alongside the national curriculum, I shall be happy to support it.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman may be right in his argument and it is not for me to judge accordingly, but he referred to the need for religious education and the tolerance that it would instil. Is it not a fact that in Northern Ireland there is no lack of education on both sides of the sectarian divide? Is there any evidence that that form of religious education, which may be right — I am not criticising it — has instilled tolerance, understanding and above all respect for human life?

Mr. Coombs: I believe that that is totally irrelevant to the situation in British schools and that that type of intervention debases our discussions.
The second problem that currently faces religious education is the gap between law and practice. Schedule 5 to the 1944 Act only allows for conferences to be set up by local education authorities on a statutory basis to revise the agreed syllabus. There is no regular review mechanism allowed for in the 1944 Act. My amendments would mean that religious education teaching was permanently monitored by standing advisory councils for religious education, on a multi-faith basis, within local education authorities. The councils would act as conduits for complaints about religious education under clause 15 of the Bill.
My amendments would also ensure that there was a maximum period of 12 years within which revisions of the agreed syllabus would have to take place. They would also ensure that the standing advisory councils would report annually to the LEAs on matters such as examination take-up, the time allocated in schools for religious education, teachers' qualifications and so on.
The councils would establish a committed, knowledgeable, permanent driving force within LEAs to ensure that religious education was properly and adequately taught. Whatever fine words we may place on the statute book, good religious education, which will bring tremendous benefit to pupils, depends upon detailed follow-up matters such as teacher training, recruitment and school priorities. The permanent standing councils for religious education would be designed to achieve such objectives.
The Bill, if successful, will present a unique opportunity to improve standards of education, not just in an academic, vocational or technocratic sense, but in a spiritual and moral sense. If the Bill does that, it will exceed everyone's wildest expectations and will provide a tremendous boost to educational standards in this country.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I support the intentions of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) who has tabled the amendment and I hope that his efforts and the efforts of others will lead to some new development in Government thinking, perhaps announced today. I hope that the amendment will ensure that this matter is given a great deal of attention when the Bill proceeds to the other place. I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who is a prominent Unitarian—the Free Churches are to the fore on our Bench today.
There is widespread concern about the state of religious education in maintained schools—that concern extends beyond churches to many parents. They want to see a firm foundation of religious education available in the schools and they increasingly complain when they do not find that. An understanding of religion, especially the Christian religion, is essential to an understanding of the society, history and heritage of these islands. Such religious understanding is also essential to appreciate the breadth of human experience and the way in which people's lives have been motivated and affected by their religious beliefs.
Religious education is widely sought by parents as a framework within which their children can grow up. It is one that those children may reject or maintain as they choose as they grow up. Indeed, religious education has never prevented children from taking a different course. There are many stories of those who have in later life rejected the religious education of their childhood and adopted a different approach to religion. However, many of those who have changed their approach to religion have been thankful for the particular religious foundation they originally received.
It would be wrong to assume that the proper reestablishment of religious education in our schools would lead to some form of pietistic docility within children. Some people on the Right assume that such teaching will lead children to accept completely the decisions presented to them from the powers that be on earth. It is just as likely to lead young people to challenge increasingly aspects of

our existing society and to develop a radical approach to what should happen within it. It is for them to choose and decide on the basis of their religious education.
Should religious education be wholly Christian-based? In that connection one should think of a character in one of Fielding's novels, Parson Thwackum, who said:
When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion but the Church of England.
There is no place for such arrogance in our assumptions about religious education. Such education should be broader and more tolerant than that described by Parson Thwackum.
6.45 pm
We should enthusiastically recognise that we live in a multicultural society. That does not mean that the place of Christianity in our religious education should be diluted or reduced. The fact that we have so many black-led Churches, together with Christians from different cultural backgrounds and such a strong Moslem presence, underpins religious education and has increased the demand for it to be effective and strongly based. Even if we were not a multicultural society, it is important that children should have an understanding of the approach taken to religion in other societies.
Such understanding, however, should not mean that there is no longer a firm, credible basis for understanding Christianity. We would be doing a disservice to the people of our community if they did not understand the basis of the religion that has predominated in these islands for so many centuries. Many people in other religious groups recognise that and would not wish the religious education in maintained schools to fail to provide a proper grounding and understanding of Christian religion.
The extent of the concern that now exists is illustrated by the dramatic change that has taken place over the years. At the beginning of this century Nonconformists and Liberals — at that time, for many purposes, they were almost identical groups — were rebelling vigorously against Church of England schools. They refused to pay their rates, they were sent to gaol and in some instances they had their property distrained. They did not want to have imposed upon them or pay for a wholly denominational system of religious education. They fought to have a county school in every village so that they were not required to send their children to a church school where the religious education was based on the catechism of the Church of England. My party was helped to win the 1906 election with such a resounding majority because of the sheer strength of feeling among Nonconformists about religious education.
Today there has been a profound change. Many Nonconformists willingly send their children to Church of England schools; many Nonconformists and members of the Church of England willingly send their children to Roman Catholic schools. They do so because they want some religious basis in the education of their children and they feel that that basis has been diluted within the maintained sector.
Now there is a willingness on the part of Christians of different denominations to cross the denominational divide in search of a Christian-based education; that illustrates the gap that has opened up in parts of the maintained system. It also reflects a growing recognition


within the Christian denominations that the things we have in common are more important than the things that divide us.
At the heart of the argument is the core curriculum. Many people believe that the dominance of the core curriculum will, like it or not, be such as to push religious education to the margin. The pressures on schools are such that it seems extremely likely to happen. Therefore, I believe that religious education should be part of that core curriculum even though I prefer a pattern of local determination regarding the content of the religious education syllabus. Indeed, I was unhappy about the core curriculum from the start because of the centralisation involved. If there is a core curriculum the absence of religious education from it is likely to be to the detriment of such education and likely to marginalise it.
That leads me to believe that we must consider seriously the case for including religious education in the assessment procedures which are developed. My hon. Friends have criticised those procedures, but if they are there, the exclusion of religious education from them opens up the risk that because it is not assessed it becomes less important.
Unless we find an alternative way—and in this we look to the Secretary of State who has said that he regards religious education as important — to assert the importance of religious education in the curriculum, we may have to consider the pattern that he sees as the pattern which makes other things important in the curriculum, and through which resources will be concentrated. There is a real fear that religious education will have to jostle with many other worthy and necessary subjects which are excluded from the core curriculum.
Some of the same considerations apply to voluntary schools, but there are also special considerations which apply to Catholic schools, Church of England schools and schools founded by Nonconformists. In those schools there is a strong desire to safeguard religious education, perhaps through the core curriculum procedure or some other, so that it is not squeezed out. However, these schools particularly do not want their religious education provision centrally determined, to the exclusion of the rights and responsibilities of the managers and trustees of the schools. The members of the Churches have invested a great deal of money, time, energy and effort in the development of their school systems, and for them to he robbed of the ability to influence religious education would be wrong. In their view that component is not just one subject on the timetable; it is the influence of religion on the life of the school.
Voluntary schools are also worried about the possibility of a total change in the character of the school which could be brought about under the admissions procedures. That is a legitimate fear. They are worried about the effect of the opting-out procedures on an investment in which they have entrusted so much over the years.
The voluntary sector of education is an important partner. As I said earlier about Nonconformists, it is a partnership which is widely supported. It is no longer some sort of exclusive ghetto; it is a sector to which many parents turn because it provides some of the values in education that they feel are missing from the state sector.
Our ideal is that there should be proper provision of religious education in state schools and that the voluntary sector should have the opportunity to develop and

safeguard the investment it makes in those schools. There are genuine and deeply felt anxieties on those issues and I hope that the Secretary of State will answer them tonight. If he does not, not only will hon. Members feel that they should support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, but they will feel even more strongly that the other place should consider the matter carefully.

Mr. Raison: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said.
Amendment No. 75 remains strictly unnecessary. Having written many letters to my constituents explaining that it is unnecessary because the safeguards being sought are already in the Bill, I certainly acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) made an eloquent speech, as always. If it makes people happy to have his formulation written into the Bill, I would have nothing against it. It would not even begrudge the time spent writing all those letters. There is a good case for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to listen sympathetically to what my hon. Friend has said. In effect, he seeks a symbolic reaffirmation of the place of religion in our schools.
My amendment No. 25 seeks to include scripture among the foundation subjects and it is an alternative to my hon. Friend's amendment. There are basically two reasons why we should think about scripture when we think about these matters. The first reason was touched on by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed: our scripture is a crucial part of our culture. I tried to include in the criteria set out in clause 1, which is meant to govern the whole of our educational system, a criterion saying that the curriculum should help
to transmit the best in British culture from one generation to the next.
I am sorry that we have not had a chance to debate that, but perhaps the other place may select such an amendment.
If we can include the notion of scripture in the Bill, we can help to remedy that gap. Hon. Members will recall that when T. S. Eliot was writing his notes "Towards a Definition of Culture", he said that he regarded religion as being the essence of culture. I would not go as far as that, but it is wholly impossible to understand British culture without a knowledge of the Bible and, I would add, the Book of Common Prayer. Those are the two greatest prose works in the English language and any child who grows up under an educational system which does not give him experience of them is significantly deprived.

Mr. Cormack: I entirely agree with everything my right hon. Friend says. Does he agree that it is indeed important that those who teach the scriptures believe what they are teaching? At the root of the problem in many schools, excluding Roman Catholic and Church of England schools, is that those who teach religion do not believe in what they are teaching.

Mr. Raison: As a generalisation, I accept that. It would be desirable, but I would still rather have children exposed to the scripture by honest teachers who do not necessarily believe profoundly in religion, than not exposed. It is a cultural experience.
My second reason for including scripture is that it is at the heart of religion, so it should be firmly at the heart of religious education. Far too often, scripture is not at the heart of it.
We recognise that all the great religions have their great books and that they need interpretation. I am not simply suggesting that we should read the Bible and stop there. Such books need both interpretation and to be applied to the world in which we live. Nevertheless, without a firm basis in scripture, or the other essential books of other religions, religious education can easily degenerate into a cosmic waffle which does no good to anybody. It can be a type of subjective interpretation of good words without even as much as a nod in the direction of faith. Religious education should, if possible, include some exposure to the actuality of worship and belief as well as to study.
We are faced with the crucial question: whose scripture and religion should be taught in our schools? After all, the word "religion" does not apply specifically to Christian religion. Every hon. Member who took part in the debates on the 1944 Act assumed that they were talking about Christianity. I have not found a single hon. Member who doubted that religion equalled Christian religion. We must acknowledge that we are living in a rather different world today, so we must ask different questions. We live in a country with a variety of religions. How, therefore, should we interpret the requirement to have religious education?
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke wisely. We would apply common sense and say that the religious education given to children should, to some extent, be affected by the locality and circumstances in which they are growing up. If they live in the Sikh-dominated world of Southall, that should be reflected in their religious education. If they live in the Moslem areas of Luton, the same should apply. There should be some attempt in religious education to consider the society in which our children are growing up.
On top of that, at the heart of religious education must still be Christianity. The reasons are very much to do with the fact that it is so deeply embedded in our culture. It is not possible to grow up, play a full part in life and derive the benefits of society if a person is cut off from something which was of such fundamental importance in shaping English civilisation.
7 pm
In a sense that is a profound reason why Christianity should still be at the core of religious education. If parents dislike the idea, their right under the 1944 Act to opt out has not been tampered with. They can take their children somewhere else. If they wish to do so, no one should stop them. That is a part of religious freedom which we should accept. If they opt out and can be provided instead with teaching in another faith, such as the Moslem faith or whatever, I see nothing wrong with that. That again is part of religious freedom and good education.
I believe that there should be religious education in schools and that it should be rooted firmly in scripture. It should also be about faith which should still find expression through Christianity rather than through innocuous platitudinising.

Mr. Frank Cook: I wish to speak on amendments Nos. 75, 79 and 224. First, I should confess an interest in that I was a product of Church schools—Catholic schools and Jesuit Catholic schools. I taught for six years in a voluntary Church school before entering state education, so I understand the importance of the subject of religious

education—if subject it is—to people of the Catholic faith and of other readily identifiable religious sects, for want of a better word.
In the schools in which I taught, teachers of my generation believed that religion should permeate every subject in the syllabus. We thought that it should permeate not only English language, but geography and history. The version of English history taught in a Catholic college is different from the English history taught in a non-Catholic college because we used to concentrate on the truth. [Laughter.] I thought that hon. Members might like that. We need the subject of religion in the curriculum because we need the opportunity to explain regularly the code of ethics which we hold dear, the way in which we interpret it and the scripture on which it is based. That is a reasonable aim for anyone.
It is not often that I agree with Conservative Members, but I agree with almost every word uttered by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). Had I been moving the amendment — I would greatly have valued the privilege of doing so — I would have repeated almost word for word what he said. However, his amendment had the advantage of being tabled before ours. I commend his words and I agree with every point he made, as I agree with every point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. Ken Eastham: His was in Latin.

Mr. Cook: Had it been in Latin, I would still have followed it, being a classical student.
The amendments have been the subject of much consultation, careful thought and attention. I understand that the Secretary of State is reported as having said, in response to a question about why religion was not granted the status of a core subject, that he thought that the Churches had never asked for it. I suppose that we should look upon the amendments as a second chance for the Secretary of State. I am not suggesting that he was misrepresenting the truth; that would be improper. But I suggest that he was mistaken or perhaps had not checked the facts. While we do not look to the Secretary of State to do penance, we are certainly seeking a firm purpose.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and to see almost overwhelming agreement on both sides of the Chamber on an important educational issue. Religious education matters in schools. It is most important because man is a moral being. He is made differently from animals. When God breathed on man in the Garden he gave him a soul, a conscience and a sense of right and wrong. Man must know how to make that judgment.
Aristotle said that man is always higher or lower than the animal. When he is carrying out a moral purpose correctly, he is higher; when he betrays that moral purpose, he is lower because an animal has no sense of right or wrong and no conscience. It is no good blaming the animal in a moral sense or condemning it to hell. It has to follow its instinct for survival. It is most important that we have religious education in assembly, that it is taught and that it suffuses much of the rest of the curriculum.
Reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to the 1944 Act. I have read the debates on that Act. The provision for


religious education was opposed by only one hon. Member, if my memory is correct. It was said time and time again that that Act came into being because we had seen in Nazi Germany the bestiality that man could display. Therefore, we were determined to teach religion in our schools so that what had happened in Nazi Germany would not happen here. That is why people felt so strongly about religious education then.
There are troubles all around the world at present. Indeed, we have seen them nearer home during the last week. It shows that our fathers were right in 1944 in regarding religious education as important and in requiring it to be taught in schools. It is needed even more now.
There are two important points about religious education in schools. The first is the assembly and the other is teaching in the classroom. There is a secular defence of assembly. Any school which cannot get pupils to stand up straight in assembly, in quietness, will never control them in the classroom. I sometimes think that schools do not have assemblies now because the head teachers cannot take control. What will teachers do if they cannot ensure once a day that the pupils are quiet and that the imprint of the teachers is put on the school? I am an old-fashioned defender of the assembly. If a school does not have a hall which is big enough, there is plenty of room outside, even if umbrellas are needed. It could be an extension of physical education.
There should also be a short service, with not too many homilies. Boys do not like homilies. There should be a good tune to which they can sing and a prayer which will have meaning in their lives. A reading should be done by one of the pupils. If some of the best pieces of scripture were read, they would become part of their lives and might be recalled in times of trouble or delight, in the case of the Psalms.
The fact that we have so many children of other faiths is a challenge to the Christian religion. It is not an excuse to do nothing. Many schools, local authorities and churches use all the different religions as an excuse not to do anything. The churches do not evangelise or go to see what the pupils are doing.
My first headship in London, which started me on the path that led me to this place, was at a school in the east end, where my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) also taught at one time. Indeed, we lived together in the Oxford university settlement in the east end of London. That school had a large Jewish contingent, a large Moslem contingent and a large Christian contingent. When I arrived there, the school did not have assemblies because, if there was a Christian assembly, everyone became Jewish and if there was a Jewish assembly, everyone became Moslem. It was obvious that the only way to have an assembly was to get them all together.
I met the leaders of the three religions in the area, and we chose 10 hymns that worshipped the Almighty without any mention of any deviation into other religions, and at our first assembly everyone came in to sing those 10 hymns. Religious education was taught by people sent into the school by those religious leaders. Rabbis came in to teach the Jewish pupils, imams came in to teach the Moslem pupils, and we had enough Christian teachers—here and there — to take religious education for the Christian students. The point is that we were prepared to do it, instead of making excuses.
I do not wish to reminisce too much, but at Highbury Grove school, the West Indian pupils were Christian. They liked good singing, with a few hallelujahs thrown in, and a few tambourine bands went down well. But we also had to cater for the Catholic pupils. I met the Catholic priest. I will not mention which church he came from, in case I get him into trouble with the Pope, the bishop or my friend the cardinal. But the priest and I agreed that the Catholic pupils would come to my assembly—not to worship me but to worship God—four days a week and the priest would come in and say mass on the fifth day. We did not tell ILEA about it. A good head never tells anyone what is going on, as long as the parents and children agree. The result was fully attended assemblies.
It is amazing that Her Majesty's inspectorate, the local education authorities and the Churches have not enforced school assemblies. Most schools either have no assembly or do not know what they are doing. It is no wonder that people are anxious to have it in black and white in this Bill, even though the provisions of the 1944 Act have not been enforced.
It has always been difficult, especially in secondary schools, to timetable religious education because there has always been a shortage of teachers of religion and in many non-denominational state schools it is often difficult to keep order in religious education classes. So it is not a subject that people are queuing up to teach. Schools often use it to balance the curriculum. Teachers may be down for 28 periods of teaching, only 26 of which are in their own subject, and if they have been to church at any time in the past 10 years they are asked to teach religious education. It is probably better than being landed with domestic science, which they may never have done.

Mr. Straw: Has the hon. Gentleman cooked in the past 10 years?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I must not allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt me, even though Blackburn Rovers did not win their match last week. That is worshipping of a different sort. I do not wish to cause any ill-feeling in Blackburn, which is near the place of my birth. The hon. Gentleman and I will stand shoulder to shoulder if Blackburn Rovers go up into the first division. We want to put religious education into the first division —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That was a good one, Mr. Deputy Speaker!

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's comments will be a cause for great celebration in Blackburn. Indeed, the players will turn out tonight with a skip in their stride, especially since Blackburn Rovers' finest hour was when they beat Rossendale United 11–0—a match at which the hon. Gentleman's grandfather was present.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: We talked of nothing else. Perhaps I should just say amen and go on.
When the Bill becomes law, and core and foundation subjects are introduced, there will be a great battle for the remaining periods. Should they be used for extra science, second languages, the classics, home economics, business studies or economics? Religious education will be at the end of the line. It will disappear unless it is written into the Bill.
This week, I received a letter from a teacher at a renowned independent school in London—the wife of a minister of the cloth in my constituency—which said:


I am also concerned with the Education Bill and what is happening to the teaching of Religious Studies. Since it is excluded from the Core Curriculum it is being squeezed out of the syllabuses and even in my independent school it is no longer being offered from next year as a GCSE subject.
7.15 pm
As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) always says, there is the reality. The hon. Gentleman is not listening. I shall speak to him privately later. The hon. Gentleman is a close friend of mine, and 1 respect him greatly—

Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat what he said?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Gentleman regularly uses the phrase, "That is the reality." The reality here is that, if religious education is not a core or foundation subject, it will disappear.
I understand the difficulty about constructing a syllabus for religious education, but I believe that the amendments meet it. It cannot be laid down nationally. We shall have to find a different method. I understand the problem of the many different religions in Britain, but I believe that people should be taught the faith of their fathers in schools. If, as in Dewsbury, 95 per cent. of a school's pupils are Moslem, it seems to me that that school should be given over to the Moslem faith. What it is doing as a Church of England school, goodness only knows. Why not introduce some reality, instead of everyone pretending to do things for everyone else and nothing for themselves along the way?
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, religious education must not be a parade round a museum of religion. There must be faith. Those who teach religious education must believe in it. Presumably people who teach art believe in it. Those who teach physical education or football believe that it is a good thing. Teachers must sell themselves. I was a non-believer in woodwork, so I produced advertisements for the magazine instead. My teacher did not win in that case.
Religious education must be a foundation or core subject, and the Churches, Her Majesty's inspectorate and the local authorities must ensure that it is taught. Its teaching was not enforced under the 1944 Act. They were simple words. If these are only words, we shall have wasted our time tonight, but I trust that what we have said will convince the Government of the strength of our case.

Mr. Dalyell: The collective mind of the House of Commons can be forgiven for boggling at the serried ranks of the pupils of Highbury Grove, with their umbrellas, listening to the roll call conducted by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir. R. Boyson).
One disadvantage and shortcoming of the House is that when those of us who have been here for a long time speak from personal experience, by its very nature that personal experience is dated. But I am brave enough to do so, because for four years of my life I taught a great deal of religious education at Bo'ness academy. Anyone who has taught it must have found it very difficult.
Incidentally, I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Brent, North, who was a distinguished and successful headmaster, that those who teach religious education must have faith. As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr.

Raison) knows, because he and I were taught scriptures by remarkable men, those who teach religious education do not always share the faith. But that is a minor issue.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) made an important point. He said that if scripture or religious instruction was not examined, it would become marginalised. I say to the Secretary of State: I believe that is true. It is difficult enough at any time to teach divinity, religious instruction — call it what one will. If that subject is not examinable, and other subjects in the curriculum are, it is impossible to obtain the same seriousness of attention from the pupils for it. What is the Secretary of State's thinking on the issue of examinations?
This raises another tangential issue. Last Thursday I had the interesting experience of being invited by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) to the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for the opening of the Alexandra Palace. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham introduced me to many of his friends, including the chief education officer for his area. For those of us who do not come from inner London, it is staggering to be told that 86 languages and 200 dialects are spoken in the borough of Haringey.
We are not here to argue the rights and wrongs of ILEA; I have no locus in that. However, that leads me to another question that I want to ask the Secretary of State about an issue that has been discussed for a long time in the House. Where on earth will the teachers come from? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others know that many people are shy and coy about teaching religious instruction. I do not say that they funk it—that is a nasty word—but such teaching is daunting for many.
It is all very well to go on about what is desirable, but we shall not get far unless we are clear about where the teachers will come from, not only for biblical studies but for Moslem and Hindu studies. At the function to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham invited me, I sat next to a Cypriot bishop. The Cypriots have their own history and culture. Where will the teachers for them come from? Incidentally, where will the resources come from?
I cannot sit down without asking one question in this context of morals and behaviour. Can we be let into the secret of what happened about that letter?

Mr. Harry Greenway: The speech made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would not have been complete without that concluding sentence, which we enjoyed. He mentioned 86 nationalities in Hornsey. I was the deputy headmaster of a mixed comprehensive school of 2,200 children; 85 languages were spoken in that school alone. Yet the school was able to hold assemblies based on a Christian theme or a theme of another world religion. So that sort of thing can be handled in a school, but a central religious theme must be taken. That should be based on Christianity, but it should not exclude other world religions for comparison purposes. It is only possible to get across to children an understanding of one religion in 10 years or so. Other hon. Members have said that, and I agree with them.
It is ironic that the Churches should be struggling to retain their place in education and the place of religious education in schools, when one remembers that it was the Churches and religious leaders and teachers who brought


mass education to this country. The great movement of Church schools was the foundation of schooling in this country.
The legal requirements of the 1944 Act for teaching religious education are increasingly failing, so the position is serious. Five years ago, the Religious Education Council said that in two thirds of primary schools, teachers of religious instruction were confused about what they were trying to teach. So what chance would the children have? The same report said that four fifths of children over 14 received no religious or moral education. Alas, too, in many schools in this country there was no reference to Christmas last year. In some areas people said that it would be offensive to talk about the nativity of our Lord to people who were not Christians. That is sad, and we need to do something about it.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), that the assembly is an essential part of the school day. In the school in which we both taught, and of which he was such a successful head, and in all the schools in which I have taught, whatever their ethnic make-up, I have always made certain that every pupil could recite and understand the Lord's Prayer as the basis of something to turn to in their hour of need—and much more besides. The ability to pray is a basic human requirement and should not be forgotten.
Is not the education of every child enriched by some teaching and understanding of the Sermon on the Mount and the great parables and teachings of Jesus, with their pedagogic contents? We must remember that our culture is based on the Sermon on the Mount, the Ten Commandnents and the parables of Jesus, as was all Christendom. Hon. Members who have said that to understand our society children and adults needs an understanding of Christianity are right. That is why Christianity should be the centre of religious education, although not to the exclusion of all else.
In late February I wrote to The Times on the important theme of religious education in schools, and I based my amendment No. 221 on that letter. I discussed it with Cardinal Hume, with other Christian leaders and with leaders of other religions. All are agreed that the legal back-up for religious education in the 1944 Act has been unsatisfactory, and I do not think the legal back-up in the Bill is of any value, either. I do not mean to be rude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when I say that.
Successive lawyers from the Department of Education and Science, who have been pressed before the Select Committee to respond to hon. Members' concern about a failure to teach, for example, mathematics in one particular school for two years, have said that, provided that the local education authority and the school concerned had made efforts to find teachers to teach that subject, they were covered. The law could not touch them and any parental complaints would fall to the ground. It would be the same for religious instruction under the Bill. Sadly, the Bill has no significant value in that respect.
We need to get religious education into the core curriculum, and I should be happy to accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), to which I have added my name. It subsumes my amendment and would put religious education into the national curriculum, thereby giving it the status of a core subject without the restraint of the national curriculum council. That is of great importance.
7.30 pm
As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall be brief. Never has there been a greater need for an assertion, an improvement and a re-establishment of religious education in schools. There is considerable social violence not only at football matches but in many other areas. One in three of the population is convicted of a criminal offence by the age of 28. Families are under great stress, with the breakdown of one in three marriages.
I recently met a nice 10-year-old boy and had a nice chat with him, but his headmaster said later that he had tied a banger to a cat's tail and was greatly amused to watch it running along with a fizzing banger on its tail. The explosion damaged the cat to such an extent that it had to be put down. Yet that boy, who was a perfectly nice lad, could not understand that he had done wrong. He simply does not understand the difference between right and wrong.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that lying behind the amendment is pressure from the majority of the population, especially from parents, demanding that society, if it is to be healthy, must ensure that children know the difference between right and wrong and that they are prepared to stand up for that.

Mr. Straw: This has been a thoughtful, as well as an entertaining debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for their contributions. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who always presents himself as some sort of latter-day Gradgrind. However, I represented Islington on ILEA when he was the headmaster of Highbury Grove school, and I can tell the House that the image that he presents is wholly confounded by his reputation as a progressive headmaster who sought high standards for every child in the true spirit of the comprehensive school that he ran.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North referred to the great anxiety felt not only by the Catholic but by the Anglican Churches about the impact of the Bill on Church schools. They are worried not only about religious education but about the consequences of the open admission and opting-out policies. From the inception of the Committee stage, my hon. Friends and I sought to raise those issues, and they were discussed at great length. As a consequence, the Government have made some movement. I hope that this evening the Secretary of State will acknowledge, although I am not sure in what way, the anxieties expressed.
The Government cannot allay some of those anxieties while they press ahead with their so-called free market education system — that is, opting out and open admission. Although there is a wide measure of agreement about the importance of religious education, the Churches should not be fooled that unless there are major modifications to the operation of the opting-out and open-admission policies, the position of Church schools may, and probably will, be seriously undermined.
The fact that the Bill is being changed at this late stage illustrates the point made in many quarters at the beginning of the process last July, that the Secretary of State should have taken a great deal more time to consult affected bodies before introducing the Bill. The parallel between his 10 weeks for consultation and Rab Butler's


two years is striking. Like other hon. Members, I have been studying the debates of the 1944 Committee relating to Church schools and religious worship and instruction.
It is interesting to note that the issues being raised today are similar to those raised 44 years ago. The aptly named Member for Ayr Burghs, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore — [HON. MEMBERS: "We remember him well."] Perhaps I have been in this place rather less time that some hon. Members, because I certainly do not remember him. He put forward an amendment proposing that religious instruction should be limited to the
accepted Christian principles of truth, honesty, kindness, clean living and self-respect.
I am pleased to say that that was not accepted by the Government.
The anxiety that schools were not undertaking their proper duty towards worship and religious instruction was also expressed. Rab Butler said:
It is perfectly right for those who have spoken … to say that there is a great deal of nonsense talked about schools being God-less and about there being no worship or religious instruction. In fact, within the limits of what we have been able to achieve, the schools are doing great work in this field, but it is absolutely right for me, as the Minister in charge, to say that the schools, although they can play their part, cannot do everything.
The great part of the responsibility for this religious worship or instruction must fall on the denomination, or on the parents themselves in the family circle, and what the schools can do is to help with this vital part of a child's upbringing."—[Official Report, 10 March 1944; Vol. 397, c. 2402–2416.]

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps we can reminisce about Sir Thomas Moore for a moment. He used to sit where the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is now sitting, although it must have been before his time. Every day he arrived with a fresh red rose in his buttonhole.

An Hon. Member: Before Neil Kinnock.

Mr. Straw: It was before the day of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that Sir Thomas Moore wore a black shirt as well as a red rose: of course, my right hon. Friend does not.
If there was a recognition of the same issues and the same anxieties, there was also a recognition in those 1944 debates that the question of religious instruction and worship had the same potential for social division. That was touched upon in a joke made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North, who said that the history that he was taught in a Catholic school was different from that taught in other schools, and that what he was taught was the truth. That was a joke, but—

Mr. Frank Cook: It was not a joke; I was serious.

Mr. Straw: In that case, we would do well to remember that it is not only one part of the United Kingdom that has capacity for great religious tension and strife. It is not true to say, as some do, that the Irish problem is nothing to do with us. If we knew anything about our history, we would know that the Irish problem was the English problem exported, and that it reflects the deep social and religious divisions in this country that caused great carnage and bloodshed over many centuries.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that were he to pick up a French history book and read about the Napoleonic wars, he would think that he was reading

about an entirely different historic period from that portrayed in English history books? It has more to do with tribalism than with religion — and so has Northern Ireland.

Mr. Straw: The next point in my notes is that we must remember from our history that we did not abandon Anglican tests for admission to colleges in Oxford and Cambridge until 1871, and that there was discrimination against Catholics throughout this century. We must remember how easily religious devotion can turn into tribal destructiveness. There is a fine and delicate line between the two.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) misrepresented the point that I was making? I was making the point that the position in Northern Ireland demonstrates that the teaching of religion —Protestant, Catholic or any other religion; it is not confined to Christianity — does not produce tolerance and respect for human life. That was the only point that I was making. I certainly mean no disrespect to any form of religious teaching.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The great achievement of Butler and the Churches in 1944 was to secure a lasting religious settlement for this part of the United Kingdom between Church and state in education. We should not disturb that settlement unless we are convinced that the change will be for the better.
I accept the importance of religious worship and education in schools, for reasons on which hon. Members have expanded. We can have no understanding of our history and culture unless we understand that we have a Christian tradition. We cannot even understand the architecture of the Palace of Westminster unless we know about this nation's Christian heritage. It is impossible to understand our literature, poetry, classical art and music without that knowledge. Alongside that, all of us, whatever our political beliefs, wish society to operate according to ethical codes and faiths. Political ideology can never by itself provide that.
Hon. Members have recognised that we now live in a multi-religious society, in which there are not only Christian faiths but other faiths of equal importance to those who practise them.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does the hon. Gentleman advocate that religious education should become part of a core curriculum?

Mr. Straw: I was about to deal with exactly that point. The question is how best we achieve those aims. The problem is that a national curriculum lays down a core of subjects which will be followed by all pupils and provides that there should be assessment and testing of those subjects. We can argue about exactly how that will work, but there is agreement about the framework. The difficulty about including religious education in the national curriculum—it may not be insurmountable—is that it does not fit within that framework.
Under amendment No. 75, religious education is to be excluded from the testing and attainment targets, for reasons which I understand and to which I subscribe. In any event, it is difficult to test a subject fairly when some children can be withdrawn from it. That is the problem with including religious education in the national


curriculum. The difficulty with excluding it—this point was made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) — is that RE may be crowded out by the imposition of the national curriculum.
Our suggestion, which I hope better meets hon. Members' aspirations and expectations — I know that the Secretary of State will want to think about this before the matter comes before the other place—is that there should be a special status within the Bill for religious education. There should be a new clause which provides that the time and approach to religious education will be laid down by order, after wide consultations with the Churches, LEAs and parents, and which accepts, for the reasons on which the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has expanded, the difference in the quality and character of RE.
Religious education will not be tested. It should pervade the curriculum as a whole and not just be taught as a single subject. We believe that that would meet the Churches' concerns better than simply spatchcocking RE in the national curriculum. This is a crucial issue. It is crucial that we take our time and get it right.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Anyone who has heard our discussion for the past two hours could not help but be impressed by the quality of the debate and the interesting matters raised. I have been a Member for 20 years. My anniversary falls next week.

Mr. Straw: We shall send a card.

Mr. Baker: Many happy returns as well, I hope.
In those 20 years, I do not recall a debate on religious education. I recall debates on the Prayer Book, the Synod and other aspects of religion, but this debate has been specifically on religious education. It has been improved immensely by the experiences of at least four hon. Members who taught in schools and had to deal with religious education—the hon. Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
7.45 pm
The Government have continually stressed the importance that we attach to religious education. As evidence of that, we have made RE a national priority within the Government's grant scheme for the in-service training of teachers. We are providing about £1 million this year and next for that training.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked me about the position of RE teachers. The latest figures show that the intake has been about 80 per cent. of target. In January 1987, there were vacancies for 75 RE teachers in the whole of England—a low figure. There is a problem with the deployment of teachers qualified in RE education. In 1984, a secondary schools staffing survey revealed that, of the 16,200 full-time teachers with a main or subsidiary qualification in religious education, only about 9,000 were teaching the subject. The survey also showed that about 25 per cent. of tuition was given by teachers with no qualifications in RE. I think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow said that he was one of those.
The problem is being tackled through in-service training. As I have said, training in the teaching of RE is one of the national priorities of the training grants scheme,

which provides grants at the rate of 70 per cent. of LEA expenditure incurred on RE training, up to £1 million in each of the years 1987–88 and 1988–89. In the current financial year, local education authorities have told us that they expect to provide about 32,000 teacher in-service training days in religious education.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Who is responsible for that training and on what basis is it worked out? Is it training in contemporary religion or training based essentially on Christianity?

Mr. Baker: The training would be based at local level and would be arranged by the local education authorities, so I cannot answer directly. I should be happy to provide my hon. Friend with information on the syllabuses of the teacher training colleges.

Mr. Cormack: If there is no requirement that those who are trained believe in the religion that they are to teach, will it at least be certain that they are not hostile to it?

Mr. Baker: All good teaching comes basically from the enthusiasm that one feels for the subject. I should have thought that the great majority of teachers, if not virtually all, have a deep understanding of religion—not only of the texts and scriptures but of the aspects of faith and belief.
We have spelt out in the Bill the duty of local authorities to provide religious education in accordance with the provisions of the 1944 Act. It is a matter of concern—this has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that the quality of religious education provided in many schools leaves much to be desired. In many schools that are not Church schools, religious education has become very perfunctory. We have therefore tried in the Bill to strengthen the provision for RE in the 1944 Act. Far from playing down the importance of religious education, the Bill puts the promotion of spiritual and moral values at the forefront of any consideration of the curriculum and makes a statutory requirement in that respect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) spoke of the importance of the study of the scriptures as texts, and certainly, the Cranmer Prayer Book and the King James version of the Bible are great literary as well as religious texts.

Mr. Cormack: They are not much used in the churches these days.

Mr. Baker: Those of us brought up with an understanding of, and a familiarity with, the Prayer Book and the King James version will carry phrases and words from them rattling around in our memories until the day we die. I agree with the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that the study of the scriptures is vital, although my study of the scriptures at school was particularly narrow, as we spent a lot of time tracing the detailed voyages of St. Paul in Asia Minor. Our RE lessons became more like geography lessons. That gives the House a small window into my experience.
Religion is not just about studying the text. Religious education should involve exposing children to the possibility of belief and the experience of faith. Education should not be concerned only with the mental and physical development of a child. The moral and spiritual dimension should be opened up.
Clause 1 provides that the curriculum of all maintained schools should promote the spiritual development of all pupils at schools and of society as a whole. Clause 6 places a direct statutory duty on local education authorities, head teachers and school governing bodies to ensure that religious education is provided, and that duty is explicit rather than implicit.
In addition, in clause 15 we have for the first time provided specifically for parents and others to lodge a formal complaint if they believe that religious education is not being provided in accordance with the statutory requirements.
We hope that the clear spelling out of duties in the Bill will go a long way to improve the quality of religious education and that resort to the new complaints procedure will be exceptional. But it is no part of our intention that religious education should be any less well underpinned than the foundation subjects of the national curriculum—a point made by the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.
All the provisions strengthen the existing duty to provide religious education and will help to improve the quality of what is provided. However, for reasons that we fully understand, the Churches have been anxious to ensure that religious education should be further strengthened within the national curriculum. For many people, religious education, in its widest sense, lies at the heart of the curriculum. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) asked about the core nature of the subject, and the very use of that word is significant. Some have argued that religious education should be a foundation subject, but that would involve the determination of the syllabus by the secular and central authorities — the National Curriculum Council and the House of Commons.
We firmly believe that if religious education is to continue to be taught well in our schools in the longer term, what is taught must reflect the views and values of local religious communities. As the law stands, religious education in county and in voluntary controlled schools is provided in each local education authority in accordance wth an agreed syllabus, determined locally by religious educational interests in the area.
For aided schools — the full Church schools —provision is determined by the governors of each school in accordance with any trust deed relating to religious education. The arrangements have stood the test of time, and while there are good grounds for strengthening them, it would be most unwise to remove the existing local dimension. The 1944 Act got the balance right and it would be a retrograde step if the House determined centrally what is taught in religious education, as we would if religious education were made a foundation subject under the Bill.
The Government have no wish to decide what religious education should be given in Catholic or Jewish schools. It is for the leaders and practitioners of those faiths to decide what should be taught. Nor would we presume to require that religious education should be the same in county schools in Devon as in schools in Bradford. That is rightly a matter for local decision, and we have no wish to tamper with the local discretion currently provided.
The House will know that I have held extensive discussions with the leaders of the Church of England, with the Catholic Church in England and with the Methodists to consider how their worries can be met. I am glad to say that our discussions have been rewarding and that we have had some success in finding common ground and reaching agreement. What I am about to say reflects that agreement with the Churches, which amounts to a new religious settlement.
The Churches wish local discretion to be retained. I acknowledge their desire for even greater emphasis to be placed on religious education alongside our national curriculum proposals. We have therefore agreed to amend clause 2 to ensure that religious education is statutorily identified as part of the basic curriculum to be provided for all pupils by all maintained schools and that it takes its place before the core and foundation subjects. I therefore welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), supported by the hon. Member for Attercliffe, among others. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green for the way in which he spoke to the amendments.
I also welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) which provide for the strengthening of the locally agreed syllabus procedures for RE. I am also well aware of the value of standing advisory councils in ensuring that RE is properly provided in county and controlled schools and in making sure that agreed syllabuses are reviewed from time to time. That is why, in principle, the Government agree with the aims of the amendments and would be willing to amend the 1944 Act along the lines proposed.

Mr. Straw: I note what the Secretary of State said about the inclusion of religious education in the basic curriculum. Do the Government intend that section 25(5) of the 1944 Act, which provides for parents to withdraw their children from RE as well as worship, should continue to apply?

Mr. Baker: The clear answer to that is yes. That is one reason why we cannot accept the amendments as drafted. I have given my hon. Friends a clear undertaking that the spirit and meaning of the amendments will be incorporated in the Bill in amendments tabled in another place. I have to take advice from parliamentary counsel, and one point that would have to be spelt out is that parents would continue to have the right to withdraw their children from religious education or from collective worship.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Under the settlement that my right hon. Friend has announced and the provisions that he has promised to introduce, will it be possible for Christian instruction to take place in all schools? It seems to me that, under the local arrangements that he described, certain schools might be instructed in a religion other than Christianity. That would mean that the culture of this country—the adoptive culture of many from overseas—would not be taught to children.

Mr. Baker: I shall come to that point in a moment. It is an important point and it has been touched upon by several colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North told us from experience how he had handled that point.
The outcome of the discussions that have taken place over the past few months is a worthwhile, workable and, in many ways, historic agreement. It is historic not least because it will reinforce the quality of religious education in our schools.

8 pm

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman will know that for 14 years I taught religious education on a voluntary basis. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will the Secretary of State agree that whatever arrangement he comes to or whatever adjustment of statute there may be, the possibility of increased quality must depend on the people who choose to take up the profession? When he has discussions with the Churches about this matter, will he ensure that they are as concerned about it as we are?

Mr. Baker: I am willing to give that undertaking. I have already mentioned the number of trainee teachers in religious education. When I talked to the bishops and discussed numbers, I said that there are not only the teachers who are trained in religious education. There are many vicars and priests in our country and there are members of other faiths who are well trained in the understanding of their religions who could contribute a great deal.
The other point I have made to the bishops of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church is that many parents are not believers, who do not attend church and who may be agnostic or even atheist but who believe that if their children could be subjected to the moral teaching and possibly the spiritual awareness of religious education, they would benefit enormously. Therefore, this settlement represents a great opportunity, which I hope the Churches will now seize.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State made the point about those who have no faith themselves but choose to send their children to schools where religion is taught. May I refer him to the problems of Church schools and invite him—perhaps not at this point in his speech — to address the problems of the admissions system and opting out? He knows that those are still matters of great concern to the hierarchies of the Catholic Church and the Church of England.

Mr. Baker: That is on cue, because I am about to deal with admissions policies and open enrolment, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green.
The Churches have pressed on me their concern about the effect of more open enrolment on their schools. The solution offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and others in amendments Nos. 78 and 79 would effectively be to exclude aided and special agreement schools — nearly one fifth of maintained provision—from the effects of chapter II of the Bill. I cannot accept that. I want to see all schools responding as much as possible to the preferences of parents. However, I am prepared to strengthen the existing safeguards for the special ethos of denominational schools so as to reassure the Churches and their champions in the House.
We have always emphasised that the safeguards in the Education Act 1980 will continue to apply under more

open enrolment. It was the 1980 Act which, for the first time, built in safeguards, particularly on admissions policies for Church schools.
As at present, aided and special agreement schools will not be required to admit children where that would conflict with admission arrangements they have agreed with their local authority — for example, to limit the number of non-Catholic pupils entering a Catholic school. In such cases, some non-Catholic pupils may legitimately be refused admission even where there is space left in the school because their admission might dilute the essentially Catholic ethos of the school.
Church leaders fear that local authorities may not always be willing to reach such agreements. Therefore, I intend to bring forward amendments in the other place that will require local education authorities to conclude admission arrangments with the governors of aided and special agreement schools where they are requested to do so. Where the two parties fail to agree on the terms of an arrangement, there will be provision for the holder of my office to determine what will be reasonable in the circumstances.
I have also been asked about the position of grant-maintained schools. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I apologise: Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Long live the difference.

Mr. Baker: I apologise. I will not enter into a discussion of women or women priests.
I should like to emphasise that the safeguards for Church schools in the local authority sector will continue when such schools become grant maintained and the Churches should have nothing to fear from the proposals in chapter IV.
If a voluntary school becomes grant-maintained, the foundation will continue to appoint the majority of governors. The assets of the trust will remain secure and the school will have to offer religious education in accordance with its practices as a voluntary school and will remain part of the broader Church community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and others have proposed that the governors of a voluntary school should not be able to make an application for grant-maintained status without the agreement of their trustees. If grant-maintained status was going to remove the trustees' influence at the school or threaten the assets, I might have some sympathy with that point of view. However, as it will not do that, I do not see why the parents and governors of Church schools should be denied the rights and opportunities that we are offering to parents and governors at other schools. The Bill provides that the trustees should be informed as soon as a decision is taken to hold a ballot of parents, and gives them the right to object to any proposal that may subsequently be put to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Frank Cook: The points that worry me, in view of what the Secretary of State has just said, are whether time would be allowed and whether trustees would get the opportunity to take account of the trusteeship in relation to other schools that may be part of their group so as to bring to the consciousness of the parents who will take the decision the consequential impact of any decision they may make.

Mr. Baker: I think that I can answer yes to that question. I should like to spell out the way in which we would envisage that being done. The Catholic Church has asked for a direct veto, and I am afraid that I cannot agree to that. However, it would be possible to bring forward amendments spelling out clearly the opportunities that would exist for the trustees in a Church school to make clear the consequences not only for their school but for others in their area. We would expect that to happen in the process of public consultation.
I should like to calm the fears of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members who are concerned about the matter. I propose to bring forward certain amendments in the other place. They will be along the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton, North. More specifically, I propose to table an amendment to provide that no grant-maintained school will be able to propose a change in its religious ethos without the prior consent of the trustees.
I shall make it clear that, should a school at any stage need the assistance of additional governors appointed by the Secretary of State, the trustees will have the right to appoint more foundation governors to preserve their majority. After a Church school has become a grant-maintained school, it will be clear that it cannot cease to be a Church school. The trustees and the foundation will still be in control.
To sum up: first, the teaching of spiritual values should imbue the whole curriculum. Spiritual values are not something to be taught in half an hour on a Friday afternoon. Secondly, religious education should be statutorily required in clause 2 as an essential part of the curriculum for all pupils at school, regardless of their age or other circumstances, unless they are withdrawn by their parents.
Thirdly, what is taught should be decided locally by those concerned in the community, according to the well tried procedures set out in the 1944 Act—or, in aided schools, by the schools' governors. It should not be prescribed by Parliament.
Fourthly, the arrangements for advising on locally agreed syllabuses and for keeping them up to date should be strengthened, first by making the appointment of standing advisory councils on religious education compulsory and, secondly, by requiring local education authorities to set in motion procedues for reviewing their locally agreed syllabuses and keeping them up to date if advised to do so by the councils.
The duties of local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to secure that religious education is provided for all pupils in accordance with the locally agreed syllabuses or the wishes of the governing body should be clearly spelt out. They should also be capable of being reported on and enforced through complaints from parents or others in the same way as the Bill proposes for foundation and core subjects in the national curriculum. This is a thoroughly worthwhile outcome of a civilised debate, the more so because it reflects the shared views of the main Churches.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether Her Majesty's inspectors will have an overseeing role in this area?

Mr. Baker: Yes, of course, and a senior inspector is particularly responsible for religious education.
My final point in response to my hon. Friend is on the Christian faith. A fundamental part of any religious

education syllabus should be the Christian faith. That faith was brought to these islands by St. Augustine and it has woven its way through our history. It is in the weft and warp of our country and any understanding of our country without an appreciation of that is poor and inadequate. However, we must recognise that there are other creeds and faiths that are now strongly established in parts of our country and one must respect those.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, in his experienced way, told the House how those could be accommodated in the practice in our schools. If it is done by mutual respect and understanding, one can lead children of different faiths to understand one another's faiths. My right hon. Friend rightly said that nearly all the faiths in Britain believe in a god. That was the unifying element that he sought to build upon in the way that he conducted his school. I commend that approach to the House.
Across the party and religious divides, the House has decided to reinforce and strengthen the position of religious education in our schools and in the national curriculum. I hope that future generations will thank us for that.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the very generous way in which he has responded to the amendment. He has shown a characteristic flexibility of mind. He will forgive me when I say that we shall want to study very carefully the wording of his amendments in another place. There may be a need for further discussion. Subject to that caveat and in view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

FOUNDATION SUBJECTS AND KEY STAGES

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 2, line 20 after 'to', insert 'subsection (2A) and'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment No. 64, in page 2, line 24, after 'to', insert `subsection (2A) and'.
Amendment No. 62, in page 2, line 31 at end insert
'(2A) The Secretary of State shall publish in draft form, and invite representations on, any advice or guidance to be issued in respect of the proportion of time within the overall timetable to be allocated in any year to the subjects specified in subsections (1) and (2) above'.
Amendment No. 65, in Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
'(2A) The determination of the overall curriculum of a school by—

(a) in a county school, the headteacher in accordance with the objectives of the governing body or the local education authority under section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986; or
(b) in a voluntary school, by the governing body under section 19 of the 1986 Act

may provide for the subjects specified in subsections (1) and (2) above to be included within the curriculum in any combination or proportion which is considered appropriate, subject to the duty to secure the implementation of the National Curriculum under section 1 Above, and nothing in this section shall prevent the inclusion of such other subjects or areas of learning experience as may be considered appopriate, either separately on in combination with any subject specified as a core or foundation subject.'.

Mr. Straw: The amendment enables me to say a few words about the conclusion of the debate on the previous amendment, because amendment No. 63 is a paving amendment for amendment No. 62.
I can say, Miss Fookes — I apologise. I have that name on the brain because I have the name of the Under-Secretary on the brain. On one occasion when the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) was in the Chair, an Under-Secretary described the national curriculum variously as a three-wheeled bicycle and a fairy tricycle. In a reply to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), he accepted that the national curriculum need not apply for more than one minute in any one week. While we take the words of the Secretary of State at face value, I am not sure what he has in mind. In view of that, there have been some anxieties — for example that religious education could be crowded out of the national curriculum.

It being 15 minutes past Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [1 and 17 February] and the resolution this day to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at 15 minutes past Eight o'clock.

Clause 4

DUTY TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM BY ORDER

Amendment made: No 100 in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
'(2A) An order made under subsection (2) above may not require—

(a) that any particular period or periods of time should be allocated during any key stage to the teaching of any programme of study or any matter, skill or process forming part of it; or
(b) that provision of any particular kind should be made in school timetables for the periods to be allocated to such teaching during any such stage.'— [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 7

ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCILS

Amendments made: No. 101, in page 5, line 15, leave out `and'.
No. 102, in page 5, line 18, at end insert
`;and
(e) to carry out such ancillary activities as the Secretary of State may direct.'.
No. 103, in page 5, line 34, leave out 'and'.
No. 104, in page 5, line 36, at end insert
';and
(g) to carry out such ancillary activities as the Secretary of State may direct.
(4A) For the purposes of subsection (3)(e) or (as the case may be) subsection (4)(g) above, activities are ancillary activities in relation to a Council if the Secretary of State considers it is appropriate for the Council to carry out those activities for the purposes of or in connection with the exercise by the Council of any of its other functions under that subsection.'. —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 8

TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY AND STAFF TO COUNCILS

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 6, line 15, leave out `under a contract of employment'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 9

DEVELOPMENT WORK AND EXPERIMENTS

Amendment made: No. 106, in page 7, line 12, after `application', insert—
(i) by the governing body with the agreement of the local education authority;'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 14

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 10, line 3, at end insert—
'(4A) Regulations under this section shall not require information as to the results of an individual pupil's assessment under this Chapter to be made available to any persons other than—

(a) the parents of the pupil concerned;
(b) the governing body of the school; or
(c) the local education authority;

and shall not require such information to be made available to the governing body or the local education authority except where relevant for the purposes of the performance by that body or authority of any of their functions.'.
No. 116, in page 10, line 6, leave out 'copy'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 17

ADMISSIONS TO COUNTY AND VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 289, in page 11, line 9, leave out `this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'. —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 18

STANDARD NUMBERS FOR ADMISSIONS

Amendment made: No. 290, in page 12, line 32, after `17', insert `(1)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 20

CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 291, in page 16, leave out lines 17 to 23.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 22

INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER II

Amendments made: No. 292, in page 18, line 20, after 'Act', insert 'subsection (1) of'.

No. 293, in page 18, line 23, leave out `section—' and insert `subsection—'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 24

INITIATION, IMPOSITION AND VARIATION OF SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 245, in page 20, line 12, leave out 'such a scheme' and insert
'a scheme under that section'.
No. 246, in page 20, line 21, at end insert
'; and each such governing body shall consult the head teacher, in any case where he is not a member of that body, before giving their views on being consulted by the authority under this subsection.'.
No. 247, in page 20, line 26, at end insert
';and
(b) subject to such conditions as he may specify in giving his approval.'.
No. 248, in page 20, line 31, after 'authority', insert
'as required by that subsection'.
No. 249, in page 20, line 34, leave out 'such' and insert
'the authority and such other'
No. 250, in page 20, line 44, leave out subsections (8) to (10).—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 27

SCHEMES: DETERMINATION OF BUDGET SHARES

Amendment made: No. 251, in page 23, line 25, leave out 'met from' and insert
'taken into account in determining'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Schedule 2

APPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL OF SCHOOL STAFF, ETC., DURING FINANCIAL DELEGATION

Amendment made: No. 243, in page 170, line 6, leave out
'notice terminating his contract of employment with the authority'
and insert
'such notice terminating his contract of employment with the authority as is required under that contract'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 36

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND REQUIRED FINANCIAL DELEGATION APART FROM SCHEMES

Amendment made: No. 252, in page 31, line 11, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 38

DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN SCHOOLS

Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move amendment No. 192, in page 32, line 31, at beginning insert
'From the date named in an Order under subsection (1A) below and'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider also amendment No. 193, in page 32, line 34, at end insert
'(1A) The Secretary of State may make an Order giving effect to subsection (1) above in a particular area from a date not earlier than two years after the introduction of a scheme for local financial management in that area, and an Order made under this subsection may specify different dates of different areas.'.

Mr. Fatchett: Those of us who came in late during the debate on the last amendment but one also enjoyed the debate, and it was interesting to see the consensus and concern about a range of issues. Some of us feel scandalised by the guillotine that has just fallen, because we sense that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was set for winding up to a major and well-prepared speech on that amendment. That speech is well worth publishing in another place.

Mr. Straw: In Dartford.

Mr. Fatchett: Perhaps in Dartford. I was about to suggest to my hon. Friend that he should publish it in The Guardian, although given the way in which that newspaper is currently printed he may find it easier to print his speech elsewhere. Perhaps if he printed it in Dartford, it would be more widely read.
If we had some consensus in the debate on the last amendment, I shall try my best to carry it forward into the debate on this one. As the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) knows, I always try to cultivate consensus during proceedings in Committee because obviously that is the best way to proceed. I shall start by looking at the areas in which we have some consensus because the amendment allows me to be consensual and, if I dare use the word, conflictful. I am being like the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), who spoke about the word "prioritise". I apologise for using such words and upsetting him once more.
The amendment has two basic parts. One deals with local financial management, about which there is some agreement, and the other deals with the provision for opting-out schools, on which I suspect there is very little agreement in the House. On local financial management, I shall try to cultivate the consensus that was apparent in the debate on the previous amendment. We said in Committee that delegated local financial management was something we approved of in principle; as Socialists, we should accept and argue for that. The more people that are involved in decision-making the better, and the more we deplore power the better. The more we have people involved in participation at all levels, the better the way society is run and managed. That applies to our schools just as it should apply to many other institutions.
One of the arguments that we need to note is that the demand for decentralisation and participation is now greater in our society than at any time in our history. It goes against the political grain to advocate centralisation, but it goes with the political grain to advocate decentralisation.
It is interesting to note that, of the local education authorities that currently practise some system of devolved financial management, some will be controlled by the Conservative party, some by the Labour party and one or two by the alliance.

Mr. Cormack: There is no alliance.

Mr. Fatchett: I shall not get involved in that argument.
Hon. Members who served on the Committee will know that I have had sufficient trouble with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I am delighted that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is occupying the place of the hon. Member for Yeovil. I said yesterday that the latter had brought reinforcements in the form of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). The hon.
Member for Yeovil is absent, but he has provided us with substantial reinforcements in the form of the hon. Member for Rochdale. I understand that he wants to say a few words later about opt-out, and we shall look forward to that.
There is some consensus, in principle and practice, about local financial management. However, we have concerns, which arose in Committee, some of which I shall refer to later. We are concerned about whether it is intended to use local financial management to squeeze resources. If so, we shall oppose it because any squeeze on resources would damage the interests of our children and the provision of education. Experience suggests that, in an authority such as Cambridgeshire, where the alliance was in control, when local financial management has been practised it has been proved more expensive. That may be the price that must be paid for the principle, and it may be a price that we wish to pay.
We are concerned—this matter emerged during the debate in Committee—that the principle of delegated financial management will be used to undermine trade union negotiating rights and pay and conditions. We were anxious about the comments made by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who seemed to suggest that it would be possible for a locally managed school not to recognise an individual trade union, particularly the non-teaching trade unions. He seemed to suggest that it would be possible for a locally managed school not to pay the going rate for non-teaching staff. Such a move would undermine the principle of local financial management and, again, we would fundamentally oppose that.
We have some practical concerns, and the Government have recognised that it will take time to sort them out. We have learnt from the Government that the process of introducing delegated financial management—this will apply to authorities that are already practising some form of delegated management—will take time. It will take three years to implement those regulations and specifications, during which time many practical issues will have to be faced. Clearly, there will be times when we shall disagree about the implementation of local financial management, but there is some agreement in principle that allows us to support the clauses that permit that principle to be put into practice.
As to grant-maintained schools, the agreement about locally delegated financial management quickly disappears. This subject shows the Secretary of State at his ideological worst. In the last debate we saw him at his pragmatic best, but with regard to opt-out and grant-maintained schools, ideological forces drive him in a direction that we oppose.
We oppose grant-maintained schools for two principled reasons. We feel that they will be divisive because they will lead to selection and the reintroduction by the back door of the 11-plus. We completely oppose such a reintroduction, because there is no argument that the practice of the 11-plus damaged education and was socially divisive.
Those who take an interest in grant-maintained schools will have read a pamphlet produced by Peter Wilby, who is the education editor of The Independent. He advanced a persuasive argument that opt-out must lead to selection, and the only form of selection that would be available would be some re-run of the 11-plus.
I know that the Secretary of State would say that that is not the way that he intends it to work and that that is

not the way in which it will work in the first CTC at Solihull. I respond by saying that I would want to look at that CTC over a number of years, because I am sceptical of how its intake will change. The Secretary of State contradicts himself, because he argues that the opt-out school will be popular. If it is, by definition there must be some process of selection. I fear that that process will not be made on any measure other than a simple IQ test at the age of 11.

Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when a school opts out, it will have to apply the same admission procedures and criteria as it did before it left the maintained system? Why does the hon. Gentleman persist in suggesting that some form of 11-plus will be reintroduced? With respect, he knows jolly well that that is not the case.

Mr. Fatchett: The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), came up with what he thought was the answer and accused me of being naughty. There is another answer—I have read the Bill. If one reads the Bill, one will see that there is a provision for the character of the opt-out school to be changed after a period of years with the approval of the Secretary of State.
I understand the politics of Conservative Members, and I know what will happen. The Secretary of State will be under pressure—for example, from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—to allow a school to change its status or character. I can imagine the hon. Gentleman trying to run a campaign on that basis. I can imagine the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth—we all know that he is a keen advocate of the 11-plus and of selection — saying to the Secretary of State, "There is a school in my constituency that would like to change its character." The Secretary of State would say, "It is important to do so because, if that school does not change its character, you might be in some electoral difficulties."
The persuasive methods that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth would use on the Secretary of State would point only in one direction. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not being mischievous, because there is power in the Bill to permit that change.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): We all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has tremendous powers and is almost superhuman in his regard for his constituency. To achieve the objective that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) is saying that my hon. Friend would like to bring about, my hon. Friend would have to take a large number of people with him.

Mr. Fatchett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would try to do that. In Committee we discovered that the Under-Secretary failed to carry Kent county council with him. Every day we received letters from Kent county council criticising the Bill. The Under-Secretary promised that there would be no more letters from Kent county council. With that thread of Stalinism that runs hard through the Tory party, he said, "Leave them to me," yet we still received letters from Kent county council.

Mr. Dunn: They got better.

Mr. Fatchett: They got better because they became more critical as time went along. The grant-maintained school will be divisive because it will lead to selection, and it will be divisive for a second reason.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is no selection at present. Some of us think that selection for education might be based on aptitude and ability, but at present we have selection based on a mathematical formula which says that some children must be from the upper band, some from the middle band and some from the lower band. That is far more absurd and far less rational a method of choosing than selection on aptitude and ability.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman widens the debate in a direction in which many of us would be happy to take it.

Mr. Straw: I dare you.

Mr. Fatchett: I am not sure that I do dare, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I suspect that you are about to point an admonishing finger in my direction. You may not have the same power over my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) had, but in present circumstances you may well have such power over me.
The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) seems to have let the cat out of the bag. The Secretary of State may not agree, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to be arguing for the reintroduction of selection at 11 and the reintroduction of grammar schools and secondary modern schools. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, many Conservative Members take that view, but they do not have the confidence to go to the country on that basis because whenever they put that proposition to the electorate they are overwhelmingly defeated. Whenever they have tried to move from comprehensive education back to selective education, the Conservative-controlled local authority concerned has been forced to change its position because local parents, including middle-class parents and Conservative voters, have made it clear that they do not wish to go back to selection.
That is why there is so much public and parental fear about testing at the age of seven. Parents know that it is likely to be unscientific if the Prime Minister has her way. It is also likely to be divisive and to create a context in which youngsters are deemed to be failures at a very early age. Those of us who lived through the 11-plus experience know how it divided families and what happened to primary school teaching, and we know the great freedom that was given to primary schools with the abolition of the 11-plus.
Our primary schools now bear comparison with those in any other part of western Europe. We have very good primary education. If Conservative Members do not believe that, let them read the detailed report on primary education produced by the Select Committee in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) was involved. The quality of our primary school system is clear.
Selection at 11 was divisive. It also moderated standards. The same will happen with a simple system of selection at seven. As the 11-plus generation knows, almost without exception — I recognise that there are

some exceptions — people deemed to be educational failures at 11 remained educational failures for the rest of their lives. The same will happen with selection at seven.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted to see such a queue of Conservative Members wishing to intervene. As always, I will show a bias towards Leeds. I give way to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson).

Dr. Keith Hampson: The world has moved on, and the hon. Gentleman's arguments about selection at 11 no longer apply, as other education systems show. I have just returned from Boston, where I visited some magnet schools in deprived areas in the east and south of the city. There they believe not in selection but in specialisation. There are schools specialising in information technology, mathematics and science in the poorest parts of the city. That is the way in which we should be thinking and moving in this country.

Mr. Fatchett: I agree that testing has moved on, and I respect the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of education. We sometimes disagree about education matters in Leeds, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxieties and some of his parochial difficulties there and I shall not bring them out here.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West and the world of education may have moved on, but sadly, the Prime Minister has not. The crucial debate on the Bill concerns the form of testing that will eventually be implemented. We have said time and again that we favour diagnostic and differential testing but we do not approve of simple passor-fail testing of the kind that the Prime Minister seems to support. We have moved on, as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West and, I suspect, the Secretary of State have moved on in relation to testing, but I wonder whether the Prime Minister has.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous. Testing takes place every day in every school in the country. There are 10 or 12 different reading tests to diagnose pupils' progress. It is not a matter of passing or failing but of whether the child has reached the standard applicable to the relevant age group. If the child has not reached that level, clearly action is needed.

Mr. Fatchett: I think that that intervention was released on Monday in the Conservative party Central Office brief, which received some press coverage. We agree with the Central Office brief, but we are waiting for the Downing street brief, which is likely to be more interesting. We argue, therefore, that grant-maintained schools will be divisive in terms of selection.
It has taken me a long time to reach my second point. Indeed, I believe that Conservative Members are intervening as a matter of policy to try to spin me along on this. I believe that it is inevitable that grant-maintained schools will charge parents. We had a long debate about this in Committee, and the Minister of State was unable to reassure us.

Mrs. Rumbold: You had made up your mind.

Mr. Fatchett: I am a very reasonable person, and I pleaded with the Minister time and again to reassure me that there would be no charging. She replied that she would not discount the possibility of voluntary contributions from parents towards the employment of


additional teachers for science or modern languages, so as to enrich the curriculum. The nature of that contribution worried me, because its social context would make it increasingly mandatory. If a mandatory contribution is not a charge, I do not know what is.
For all their disingenuous looks, Conservative Members know that the logic runs in one direction. The grant-maintained school must be different, and it must offer more. That means that it will need more teachers and more resources. Unless the Government change the formula for central Government aid to grant-maintained schools, the only way to obtain additional money to change the character of the grant-maintained schools will be some contribution from parents. Grant-maintained schools will thus be divisive in two respects.
My next point was a victim of the guillotine and of the Secretary of State's great desire to curtail debate on these important issues. We understand why he wishes to do that. As we have said many times in the past two days, as the debate continues, support for the Government's proposals declines. The Government therefore have an interest in curtailing debate in this context.
The Secretary of State seems to be looking for something—no doubt the latest opinion poll. I will let the House into a secret. When we put the statistics to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford, in Committee, he said that he had a new poll which would go against all those carried out by national organisations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was it from Kent?"] No, it was certainly not from Kent, because we know what it would have said if it had been from Kent. The poll was organised by and through the Liverpool Daily Post. It showed that in Liverpool 20 per cent. of people agreed with grant-maintained schools, while nationally the figure was 17 per cent. That really is a great achievement.
Tonight we should have had a debate, if we could have had the time, about balloting procedures —[Interruption.] Conservative Members will realise that, on the selection of amendments, that is almost impossible to achieve. We share in interest in a debate and a vote on the balloting procedures.
We have a proposal from the Government that a simple majority can change the status of a school. Reduce to its logical, absurd conclusion, that simple majority could be one parent voting to take the school out of local authority maintained control — [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) makes a sedentary intervention, but if there is a simple majority, a decision could be taken in this place by just one hon. Member. We have argued in Committee—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that balloting comes under Government amendment No. 300. Perhaps he could contain himself until we reach that amendment.

Mr. Fatchett: I always try to contain myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have failed miserably on this occasion. I was trying to say that this is an important item, on which we feel that there should be some debate.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Obviously one understands why you made that ruling, but the House is placed in a difficult position because this is a central issue on which many hon. Members from all parties have strong feelings. You have been exceptionally tolerant of the hon. Gentleman up to

now, but would it be possible to have a slightly more wide-ranging debate on this clause so that points which may not be voted upon, but are felt deeply about, may be aired?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think I am extremely tolerant in the Chair and I understand the strong feelings of hon. Members. However, this clause is a very narrow one, with the exception of the first subsection. I am being as tolerant as I can. I hope that hon. Members will help me. I must advise the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that balloting is strictly limited to Government amendment No. 300, but I shall try to make the debate as wide-ranging as I possibly can to meet the interests of hon. Members on this matter.

Mr. Fatchett: I certainly will not challenge your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you understand the views of the House in this respect. You have reflected them very well.
There is a divide on this. We support local financial management, but we have reservations. We totally oppose the principle of grant-maintained schools. Our amendment links the two issues in a way that shows that this Labour Opposition is thoroughly constructive. We are a listening and helpful Opposition. As part of that, we are trying to make the system of grant-maintained schools work more effectively. In the amendment we are trying to suggest that if a school is going to opt out, it should have some experience of managing its own affairs before the process of opting out is debated and balloted on, and the decision taken. That seems a reasonable precondition.
It would be terribly damaging to the image of the Secretary of State if many grant-maintained schools ran into difficulties simply because they did not have the experience of managing their own affairs previously. So along come the Labour Opposition with an amendment which I suspect the Secretary of State will be keen to accept. I think that he will be keen to accept it because the Minister of State told us in Committee that she will accept it.
We know that the Minister of State—this was picked up by some newspapers at the time—is a keen believer in opt-out schools. Indeed, one or two newspapers said that for the first time she showed some real enthusiasm for the Bill. It was almost the glazed-eyed ideological commitment of the Prime Minister, but I know the Minister of State too well by now to say that she quite achieved such levels—or should I say such depths.
The Minister of State was deeply committed to the notion of an opt-out school. 'We know that the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat less committed—[Interruption.] Well, the Minister of State says that it was another of the Secretary of State's ideas. This man has more ideas than most of us, but I suspect that none of the Secretary of State's ideas will bring a great deal of popularity to the Conservative party. I wonder whether he will be running up and down the country in the next 18 months saying, "I am the man who invented the poll tax."
8.45 pm
We know that the Secretary of State had some reservations, because he said first that he would like a few schools to opt out. Then, when the Prime Minister said, "Thousands," in a typical Secretary of State word the right hon. Gentleman said that he would like "some" to opt out—not too many, not too few, but just enough to keep the lady of Downing street happy. He just pitched it right—

Mr. Pawsey: Just right.

Mr. Fatchett: —so that he was saved from the Left, from the Right, and above all from Downing street.
Therefore, we know that the Secretary of State has reservations, but not the Minister of State, who, during the debate on grant-maintained schools, said of opting out:
Experience of financial delegation is absolutely essential before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is likely to consider an application." — [Official Report, Standing Committee J, 26 January 1988; c. 893.]
To make sure that we had got the message correct, a couple of columns later, at column 895, the Minister of State—I can understand why she is now hiding herself in her papers — stated that there would have to be reasonable experience of local financial management.
All that our amendment seeks to do is to put on the face of the Bill the commitment that was given by the Minister of State. It is a commitment that was given by the believer and it should be important to the Government. I suspect that the Secretary of State will not want to distance himself from the true believer in this context. Our amendment simply seeks to give the Government the opportunity to make sure that it is the Minister of State who carries the day in terms of opt-out schools and the need for local delegated management.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The ability of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) to skate on thin ice would have won him a medal at the winter olympics. When we are faced with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is justly popular in the country and the Conservative party, and who is also perhaps the most skilful tightrope walker in politics, we have a marvellous gymnastic contest.
You have been exceptionally tolerant, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall certainly not seek to strain your patience. We are talking about grant-maintained schools, the importance of those institutions and the importance of this innovation. Because of the constraints of the timetable, we are not going to have an opportunity to discuss matters that you would rightly rule out of order and which, were I Chairman in Committee, I would rule out of order myself, so except to say that balloting causes concern, I shall leave it at that.
In a brief contribution I should simply like to say that the concept of grant-maintained schools has caused a great deal of concern and apprehension throughout the country. However, I personally believe that my right hon. Friend is entirely justified in including these provisions in the Bill because I believe that it is right that parents in parts of the country where the local education authority behaves strangely should not feel that their children are imprisoned in schools, and in some cases in systems, that are totally repugnant to them. To that degree, I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's innovative concept and applaud what he is seeking to do.
However, it is important that where a school opts out it should do so only because there is overwhelming desire that it should opt out. The Bill is deficient in two major respects. First, there is not that opportunity to demonstrate that it is the overwhelming desire of parents to opt out, and secondly the Bill gives enormous powers in that respect, as in others, to the Secretary of State.
I have great trust and faith in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which may be touching concept for

Opposition Members, but it is a genuine feeling on my part. However, I do not feel that I should necessarily have the same confidence in other people who might occupy that job, from whichever party they were chosen. I also believe that one of the cardinal principles of government in a democracy should be that one does not take powers to oneself that one is unhappy about one's opponents exercising.
If there is one single fault that runs through much of the legislation that the Government have introduced since 1979, it is that far too often Secretaries of State, in Act after Act, have taken powers to themselves that they would be very unhappy to see in the hands of Labour Secretaries of State or even, if one has that delightful, charitable flight of fancy, a Liberal Secretary of State. Therefore, in the weeks and months ahead when the Bill goes to another place, where their Lordships are not constrained by the timetable that inhibits and restricts us, I hope that my right hon. Friend will show the pragmatism, the breadth of mind, the depth of understanding and the intuitive sympathy that he showed when he replied in that magisterial speech to the debate on religious education to become contagious within his cranium.

Mr. Dalyell: Would this little homily and lecture apply to editors of The House Magazine who pulp pre-Christmas issues?

Mr. Cormack: If I answer that mischievous intervention, you will rightly rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Gentleman has a hobby horse, he will ride it, wherever he may be. I am only surprised that I was not asked about references to the Belgrano.

Dr. Hampson: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he considers the matter and, indeed, those in the other place, to amendment No. 83, which was not selected? It shows a broad range of opinion, led by our hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). A wide range of knights and others in the Conservative party are expressing exactly the same sentiment as my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cormack: I believe that I have reasonably good company in the sentiments that I am expressing. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes a little time between now and when the Bill comes back from the House of Lords to reflect on the general sentiment that I am seeking to express, I think that he will find that it is echoed in many parts of the Conservative party as well as in many parts of the country.
I leave it at that. I say to my right hon. Friend that the concept is admirable, but the manner in which he is seeking to execute it leaves a great deal to be desired.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I have sat in the Chamber since approximately 4 pm and I have listened to many speeches. I consider that this clause is the most important part of the whole Education Reform Bill now before the House of Commons and shortly to go to the House of Lords. It is the most important part because it eats and digs away at, and destroys, the roots of local government and its influence on education. We should not underestimate, or deal flippantly or jocularly with, a clause that is doing what this clause will inevitably do to the education system throughout the land. It is extremely important. We should not minimise in any way the importance of what we are being asked to do.
I have heard many hon. Members extol their record in education. In all matters, I always hide my light under a bushel, but I was a member of an education committee for 23 years and chairman of an education committee for over six years. The education system that we developed in Rochdale was a system of which we can be and are proud.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) extolling the virtues of the system in Wigan, it went through my mind that since he was educated in the system in Rochdale that I introduced while I was chairman of the Rochdale education committee, the qualities of that system have washed off on him and he has passed them on to the Wigan education authority. I interviewed the hon. Gentleman for a scholarship when he was 18, in my capacity as chairman of the committee. All that that does is to show what a young man the hon. Gentleman was when he took an interest in those matters.
There are education authorities that leave much to be desired, but they are few in number. I have never been in favour of taking sledgehammers to crack nuts. That is what the Bill is all about. It is about taking a sledgehammer to crack a small nut. At present my education authority is seeking to reorganise education and, indeed, to destroy excellence in Rochdale's education system, which I deplore and shall oppose. However, I do not believe that the system of opting out is the way to deal with such a situation. I still believe that local influence and local authority planning over a wide geographical area are vital elements in planning the education system for the whole area. I do not believe that one can achieve the overall pattern and system of education and the overall quality of education if one allows certain parts of a geographical area to opt out of the system and leaves the others to paddle their own canoe.
I listened to the Secretary of State's reply on Catholic organisation. I was delighted to hear his concessions, but I say with great respect, perhaps at some cost to ultimate decisions—who knows?—that my experience of the right hon. Gentleman is such that he does not follow parents' wishes. A matter was placed before him concerning the reorganisation of Catholic education in Rochdale. Because the bishops urged the right hon. Gentleman to support the scheme, he did so and approved it, although 97 per cent. of the parents who had children in those Catholic schools had objected to and opposed it.
I read with great interest the articles in the Sunday Express—indeed, I would have been tempted to put pen to paper had it been a respectable newspaper. The experience of the right hon. Gentleman's approach to parental objection, as outlined the Sunday Express, was similar to mine.
In the past two weeks I have had occasion to see the Secretary of State about another matter and I was accompanied by all four of the governors elected by the parents of the two schools in question. I have not yet received his decision about that matter, but it will be extremely interesting to see whether he upholds the views of the parents in that case or, once again, overrules them. I am not entirely happy with the suggestion that we have a Secretary of State who is always keen to uphold the views of parents. Whether he upholds the views of parents or not, I am certain about one thing—opting out is not the answer.
9 pm
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that opting out would lead to divisions and the reintroduction of the 11-plus. When he said that, I turned to the hon. Member for Wigan—we have known each other for a long time—and said, "That is not the key issue. The key issue is ability to pay." The hon. Member for Leeds, Central developed that argument later, and I agree with everything that he said.
It is not a matter of charging pupils to go to schools that have opted out. Pupils may go to those schools free, but there will be trips to Germany, France and here, there and everywhere. They will be charged for music lessons after school. If they want to learn the violin, they will have to pay. If they want extra tuition, they will have to pay. Ultimately, class divisions across an authority will emerge and those areas where the parents have the ability to pay will opt out. The other parents will be left with the maintained sector because, much as they would like to send their children to a school that has opted out, they will feel unable to do so because they will be unable to keep up financially with the other parents.

Mr. Stott: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with a great deal of interest. He has already pointed out that we have many shared experiences and I admired what he did when he was a chairman of the education authority in Rochdale. The systems of Rochdale and Wigan are similar.
At the moment, schools are not simply places on the campus—education is in the round in Wigan, as it is in Rochdale. In Wigan, we supply the child psychology service, the reading services, Outward Bound hostels and many music facilities such as the Wigan jazz orchestra, which is similar to the Rochdale brass band. If schools were to opt out of the local authority, would it be able to charge schools for the remedial reading services, the child psychology service or the Outward Bound activities, which the schools and their pupils now enjoy as a right? The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right—all those things will cost money.

Mr. Smith: That is a valid point. The local authorities will be able to charge for such services. Indeed, because of the political complexion of some authorities, they will try to charge at a point that forces schools into difficult situations. I do not believe that the Secretary of State has thought this through and worked out all the implications.
Another important consideration—I do not want to be misunderstood, but it must be faced—is that there are schools—I have such schools in my authority—where more than 90 per cent. of the children are Asian. Will the Secretary of State refuse those Asian parents the right to opt out? If he does so, he is in difficulty, but if he does not he is also in difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman may smile, but he is walking into a minefield of racial hatred that can develop in local authorities where such problems exist. He should not underestimate the scale of that problem, because there may be serious repercussions.
If one school opts out, it can only do so at the expense of another. I believe that to be a fact and I do not see how it can be otherwise. It should also be remembered that children leave school. I accept that, to an extent, that factor is covered, but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has thought it through. Those parents who, in one year, wish to opt out and vote to do so may not be parents at that school in two or three years' time. Parents


change and the school—given the time period in the Bill—then has to start to try to get back into the local authority maintained sector.
What is more important is that head teachers change. From my experience of education, the headship of a school has as much to do with the quality of a school as anything else—if not more. I could quote schools in Rochdale where, at one time, we had a problem persuading children to go to them. If one changes the head, it changes the whole style of the school. I could quote a school where we literally had to keep pupils out because it was bulging at the seams. The head moved from one school to another and the kids followed him.

Mr. Carttiss: Like the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I agree with some of his points, or did so at one time. Is it not the case that school governors will be much more involved in the appointment of heads than has been the case with local education authorities—I was a member of an LEA for many years —which sometimes impose a head who does not fit in with what the school governors want? The Bill provides parents with greater representation than they have at present, so the governing body will be that much better equipped to ensure that a successor to a good headmaster reflects the ethos that he has created and will not bring about a revolutionary change, as sometimes happens when LEAs force on schools heads whom they do not want.

Mr. Smith: With great respect, is it not a fact that under the Bill parents have only 30 per cent. of the governorship of the school? At present, a local authority may impose a head on a school. That has never been my experience, but I admit that Rochdale is a progressive authority and balloted parent governors 25 years ago. There is nothing new about that—only the numbers have increased. Only 30 per cent. of governors will be parents, so while at present the LEA may impose a head on a school, under the Bill the governors appointed by the Secretary of State will do that because they will make up 70 per cent. of the board.
Parents change, head teachers change and, although I do not wish to frighten the Minister, Ministers change. The right hon. Gentleman may not be the Secretary of State in a month. To be fair to him, I should think that he will be, but I would not put as much on 12 months. He will certainly be the Secretary of State until any reshuffle, and probably thereafter.
Ministers change. It is all right putting power in the hands of one Minister, but those powers apply to every Minister from then on until the powers are changed. I have almost 16 years' experience of this place and I know that, once a Minister has power, he does not come to the House to give it up. No way. He sticks to it and uses it. It is extremely rare to have a Minister come to the House asking it to withdraw his power; he always comes to increase it.
While some parts of the Bill may be commended, this clause compels me to vote against the Bill on Third reading, as I shall do on Monday. The clause is disastrous. It is a fundamental error. It will remove from LEAs their ability to plan for a geographical area. That ability is absolutely vital to maintain standards of education, to plan maintenance and the allocation of teachers, and so

on. The ability to organise exchanges between schools because in one school five pupils wish to study Latin and four something else, and to merge schools for particular subjects will disappear. The ability to plan centrally will be removed.
While I deplore what some LEAs have done — I deplore what the Rochdale authority is trying to do—I still believe that that is a better alternative than allowing schools to opt out and get away from the basic roots of the system of educational organisation that we have come to know.
I said earlier that the Bill is destroying local government, and it is. Local government is about providing necessary services for people who cannot afford to pay for them individually. People are brought together, they chip into a kitty and they elect people to run the services and spend that kitty. If chunks are allowed to opt out, as is proposed, the very basis of local government will be destroyed. Opting out is a gross irresponsibility.
I shall support the amendments not because I think that they are the ideal solution but because they are better than what is in the Bill. The amendments help to obstruct opting out. Anything that makes it more difficult to opt out is worth supporting. I do not believe that the clause has been thought through, or that the Government fully understand its implications. I forecast that the Government will rue the day that they put the provision in the legislation.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I represent a constituency in the letter-writing county of Kent. The county has responded positively to the proposition for opting out. The chairman of the education committee has said loudly and clearly that she sees opting out as a challenge to which she intends the local education authority to respond by maintaining schools of such a standard that none will wish to opt out. That seems to be an entirely appropriate response to the proposition that we should have increased variety in the educational system. So I am in favour of opting out.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend a simple question. Will there be assistance, particularly for primary schools, in carrying the burden of financial delegation? There is much more anxiety about local financial management in primary schools than in secondary schools.

Dr. Hampson: Kent seems to have every conceivable system that God has created — including, I believe, middle schools. In Leeds, all middle schools are categorised as primary yet they have more experience than most primary schools. They cater for the 9-to-13 age group. Unfortunately too many of them come below the threshold of 300. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) feels, as I do, that there should be an acknowledgement of that by the Front Bench and that they should adjust the Bill accordingly.

Mr. Rowe: I see this great reform Bill as the beginning of a long period of evolution. We are bound to learn by experience. I hope that that point will emerge quickly and will be dealt with speedily.
In the debate on the financial memorandum, I queried whether what is left to the local education authority for financial management is not too much. I have an edgy feeling that, if we are not careful, the first result of the legislation will be a massive increase in administrative expense because we have not devolved sufficient financial


control from the local education authority to enable it substantially, reduce its administrative staff, while at the same time we are laying upon schools such extra administrative burden as to require additional administrative input. My right hon. Friend should consider carefully whether he should not take more financial control away from the local education authority and devolve it to the schools.
I particularly want to address one other crucial issue which has been touched on in this debate and in the previous debate and which should have more consideration. I was disappointed that the Committee did not give it sufficient attention. When we consider the eligibility of a school to opt out and the criteria which the Secretary of State will demand, it is likely that many groups will wish to opt out for wholly respectable reasons. But the consequence of their opting out will be to create a school of one religion, cultural group or ethnic group in such a way as to deprive the children in that school of the broadening influence of other groups.
9.15 pm
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entirely right to say that there are safeguards against a school changing its nature in the first 10 years. But if a school with 80 per cent. Moslem pupils and 20 per cent. Christian pupils—as is the case in a school that was drawn to my attention—is given the opportunity to opt out, it is almost certain that the 20 per cent. of Christian pupils will have disappeared long before the 10 years are out. Schools that wish to opt out on those terms have a strong basis in principle for doing so, because there have always been Roman Catholic and other religious minority schools.
But there has been a significant change. As the world has shrunk in terms of communication, through travel and television, groups can identify much more actively with the causes of their fellow religionists or others of their race all round the world. For example, it would be easy for a school that had a substantial percentage of Tamil pupils to become a centre of Tamil sentiment and to identify closely with the problems of Tamils overseas.
I do not wish to over-dramatise the position, but I believe that not enough consideration has been given to the balkanising effect on British society of the understandable and wholly respectable desire of a range of groups to use the opting-out mechanism to create and maintain in perpetuity schools that will be narrowly focused. The problem would become much more dangerous if there was a substantial downturn in the economy and it was perceived locally that one group was being preferred over another—for example, in obtaining employment.
On the day when two soldiers are being buried as a result of an incident in a country that is rent by religious strife, compounded by disadvantage of one sort or another, I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay careful attention to the large number of requests to opt out to create the sort of school which I believe may be undesirable.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: We debated this important and interesting point at length in Committee. I can give my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) some reassurance. The problem will arise whether or not the school opts out. I have made it clear that a change of religious ethos or character of a school is a major change of character.
Just because a certain proportion of children happen to belong to one foreign religious faith, a school does not become a school of that faith. That applies to grant-maintained schools or to schools that remain local authority-maintained. Should there be a desire to change the religious character of a school, it must go through the full process of clauses 12 and 13—a process of public examination and debate. So a school could not suddenly slip into the hands of a minority—

Mr. Fatchett: Or a majority?

Mr. Baker: —or a majority, and I want to reassure my hon. Friend that there are safeguards.

Mr. Rowe: Of course, I take reassurance where I may find it and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for it. I do not feel there is a great danger of schools slipping into the control of minorities; I am concerned about schools slipping into the control of majorities who, not necessarily at the time but in years to come, will draw many of their cultural and other priorities from outside these shores.
I admit that I am ambivalent about this. At one level I do not see why people should not be allowed to establish schools in which they can pursue their own moral, cultural and religious traditions. At another level, it is Government's job to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. As there are already examples within our shores of areas in which it has become impossible to recreate that integrity, the same may well happen in other parts.
One last example, and I shall shut up. Let us take an extreme one. Suppose that there are enough Sikhs in Southall who firmly believe in the establishment of Khalistan and they found a school in which that becomes part of the historical instruction, and so on. The national curriculum will protect against that only to some extent.
I am not being alarmist. This was an issue that we discussed up hill and down dale on the Swann committee for five years and found great difficulty in resolving. We came up with proposals that separated the teaching of religion from the teaching of sectarian religion, but that was not a satisfactory solution. So I have reservations about opting out, but this is my only serious worry. On the whole, it will produce a valuable element of competition, but it needs a great deal more thought than it has been given thus far.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Several hon. Members have pointed out that this is an extremely important part of the Bill and is principally designed to undermine the work of local authorities. It is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut and, worse, it will deepen the divisions that already exist in education.
One of the insidious things about this part of the Bill is that it seeks to strengthen privilege by the DES providing for parents who would not, perhaps, usually think of going to the expense of sending their children to private schools, but who will receive a private education for them on the cheap in this way. In doing so, they will be causing local authorities untold difficulties of organisation.
What will happen when parents suddenly discover that the attractions of an opted-out school are taking other children away from their children's school, with the result that the local authority will say that it is costing far too much to keep the first school open and children in it will have to be transferred to other schools in the area? That


may not cause too many difficulties with, for example, transport in a populous area, but in rural areas it could be a disaster. It is just one example of the way in which the opting-out provision will adversely affect many parents and children.
What will the admission procedures be in schools that opt out and are then over-subscribed? Will the headmaster say that, in the first instance, children who already have a brother or sister at that school will have first choice? Will he then say that those children living within a mile of the school will have automatic right of entry? What about the other children? We need to know exactly what the admission procedures will be when a school is deemed to be full. I hope that the Secretary of State will give a detailed explanation of what will happen.
Some schools have special units attached to them, which often use a wide range of specialist services provided by the local authority and also some of the facilities in special schools. A school in my constituency, in which my wife works, has a unit for children with special needs. The school, which is at Brackla, uses the swimming pool of a special school in Bridgend. It is an integral part of the service provided by the Mid Glamorgan education authority, which is one of the leaders in providing for special needs and in seeking to integrate such pupils into the mainstream system. If that school opted out, should it have to pay for the services of the swimming pool? The education authority will have to decide whether to make a charge based on the marginal cost of running that school, or whether it would have to charge the whole cost of the time spent in the swimming pool.
The headmaster might decide to cut specialist provision because he is finding it difficult to make ends meet.

Mr. Stott: Unless the Government provide funds.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. Will the Secretary of State specifically provide funding for special units within mainstream schools that opt out? Will he tell us his exact intentions? Children with special needs have very different funding needs within the education system. The right hon. Gentleman will have to set up a complicated system of provision to cover all those different needs.
This part of the Bill is a disaster for the British education system and a disaster for our children. Parents in schools that opt out will have education on the cheap at the taxpayers' expense. The Government would be far more honest if they dropped the clause and instead devoted their attention to the proper funding of the whole of the maintained sector. They must ensure quality of education, through a decent, flexible national curriculum, in all our schools, including those in the independent sector.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) waxed eloquent on the dangers of this part of the Bill. I agree with much of what he said, but the logical conclusion to be drawn from his remarks about the behaviour of some local education authorities was that opting out as a matter of last resort was beneficial.
One of the peculiarities of the guillotine procedure is that not only can we not vote on the most important matters in the Bill but we cannot speak about them, because of the rules of order. I do not want to trespass

beyond the rules of order— I am probably less skilful than my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson).
If opting out is a matter of last resort, as I think it should be, it follows that the procedure to opt out should not be made as easy as possible, as it is under the Bill. There should be a hurdle to jump before it can be carried out. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider this matter seriously. He knows that there is a considerable body of opinion that thinks along these lines. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that a proper hurdle is built.

Mr. Flannery: We are discussing the fundamental part of the Bill. If this group of clauses were missing, the Bill would fall apart, because they are at the centre. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said that the world has moved on. The implication was that the Opposition had not moved with it. But the Bill takes not just a few steps back; it goes a great way back.
It is sad to see the docile way in which Conservative Members fall into line, even those who struggled for some time against the Conservative leadership and lost their positions for doing so.

Mr. Stott: With honourable exceptions.

Mr. Flannery: I am not bothered about the exceptions. I want to get on with the opting out.
There is no basis for this opting out, except crude dogmatism about education. It is selection by the back door. It springs from the long vendetta against comprehensive education and especially against the elected local education authorities. There is determined opposition to the Bill throughout the country. When one looks at one's postbag, one wonders who supports the Government, apart from the docile Conservative Members. I think that virtually all LEAs are against the Bill.
The teachers' unions were unnecessarily pushed into taking disruptive action for two years. Eventually, the money which could have been given to them two years before and which could have stopped all the nonsense, came forward.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: Not just now, Paddy. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had a good deal today.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Give way.

Mr. Flannery: I want to continue. I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).

Mr. Ashdown: I gave way.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman gives way only to people whom he thinks are important. He does not bother giving way to people like me. The hon. Gentleman is not as important as he thinks he is.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: Stop interrupting and let me get on with what I want to say.

Mr. Ashdown: Give way, briefly.

Mr. Flannery: It will not be a brief intervention.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should return to the subject.

Mr. Flannery: This fathead will not shut up.
I should like to list the bodies that are against the Bill. Virtually all the LEAs, all the teachers' unions, except for one particularly servile little organisation, all the parent-teacher associations, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association—all the people who make the education system work on an organised basis—are against the Bill and especially this part of it.
As I said in Committee, this is a step in the dark. The Government do not have the faintest idea where they will go. It is obvious to anyone who has worked in education what will happen. Nearly all Conservative Members went to private schools and do not understand the complexity of dealing with the education of millions of our people. While the practical effects of the Bill are being worked out and its provisions are producing chaos, Conservative Members' children will still be going to private schools. It is our children that they are flinging into this mess by disrupting an education system worked out patiently and democratically over 100 years or more.

Mr. Ashdown: According to the Whip, the hon. Gentleman has two minutes.

Mr. Flannery: The voucher system came first—

Mr. Ashdown: Two minutes.

Mr. Flannery: Shut up. I think that I have done my best against the ugliness of the hon. Member for Yeovil, so I conclude by saying that the Bill is unworkable. Opting out is a wild plan inspired by sectarian hatred of the present democratic system of education built up so patiently over the years. It is a veritable leap in the dark and it is bound to cause chaos. There is no precedent for it. The Government have no idea where they are going. The provision will be extremely expensive. It has now become public that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have fallen out over that and we understand that their difference is going deeper. The courses needed to train people in how to do their best with the provision will be extremely expensive and will take people out of school.
The Conservative party, dizzy with success, does not know where it is going. Conservative Members are carrying out what their mistress told them the Friday before the general election, when she got totally carried away. The reality is that the provisions are a major leap in the dark. The Bill will not work, and opting out is something that nobody sensible could possibly have conceived of.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Although I strongly support the principle of opting out, I believe that a majority of all parents should have to make the decision. The decision to opt out is an extremely important decision for a school to make. If a school wishes to opt out, well and good, but it should not be done by the decision of a minority of parents. I am a consumer of state education. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) seems to think that all Conservative Members went to Eton or Benenden and that we send our children there. We send our children to state schools. We believe in state education, but we also believe in the right of parents to choose. We believe that parental choice should be solid and clear. I support the amendment and believe

that the decision must be made by a majority of all parents and not simply by those voting. A decision to opt out will then be the parents' decision, and that is right.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I have found the debate fascinating. In the interests of consistency, I shall continue to talk about process, as I tried to do throughout the Committee stage. Process is the essence of education; it is at the centre. In a sense, this debate has highlighted the problems that the Government have with process, which arise largely from the woefully inadequate consultation that they have allowed on the Bill and the woefully poor response to what consultation there has been.
It is not insignificant that we are now discussing what many of us consider to be the most important part of the Bill in such a short debate. Our proceedings are to be guillotined and we have not had an opportunity this evening, or at any time during our proceedings on the Bill, properly to deliberate or to hear all the views. We have heard some interesting views tonight, particularly from Conservative Members. There is great anxiety in schools and local authorities and among parents about these measures and about the role that they will play.
I was at a school on Saturday—yes, Saturday—and two teachers had been there all day with a group of children who were producing a school magazine. They asked me where that would come in the national curriculum, and I was not quite sure how I should answer them. They told me that three of their school governors have already said that they will not stand again after this year because they fear the proposals on local financial management. I am concerned that a lack of consultation has failed to reassure parents and governors and has failed to give them confidence as to what it is all about.
It seems to be my lot to keep speaking when our sergeant-major tells me that I have only half a minute. To have only one and a half hours on the serious issue of opt-out is bizarre.
Two aspects of opt-out are problematical. One is the massive centralisation and the other is the essential divisive nature that it adds to our education system. If education is going to do anything, it should enable the children of our country to begin to know one another, to begin to know and understand the nature of our society and how they as individuals will contribute to that society and work within it. The tragedy of opt-out is that it cuts to the very heart of what I see as the benefits of education. It celebrates and encourages divisions. It does not work towards eradicating divisions and does not help us to learn how to work together in our society.
There are many other things that I would like to say but I have been told to wind up and I shall do so. I hope that the Secretary of State, if he does not listen to us, will at least begin to listen to some of his hon. Friends, and that he will recognise that the Government have got this wrong and that they need to think it through again and that they need to take people with them in doing so.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: This has been an interesting debate and has ranged widely over the issue of grant-maintained schools. I shall try to reply to the various points that have been raised. I should like to express my disappointment at the fact that there has not been a direct debate or vote on the balloting procedures. I am not criticising the selection of the Chair, but I am disappointed for the simple reason


that I had prepared a long and effective speech on that matter which I shall now save for another occasion. However, I shall touch upon it and draw from it from time to time.
I shall reply to the points made on the amendments by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) because he did touch on the amendments at the end of his speech. I do not criticise him for dealing with other matters. I shall obviously recommend my hon. Friends to reject the amendments.
The purpose of the amendments was to delay the process of the grant-maintained status coming through until schools have had financial delegation. I intend that the first grant-maintained schools should be able to start their new lives from September 1989. It would be quite wrong to raise expectations of freedom only to say that schools will have to wait three or four years until they have clearly identifiable budgets under local authority schemes of financial delegation. I mean to ensure that greater choice for parents and greater autonomy for schools are realities by the end of this Parliament.
I accept that the first grant-maintained schools may come from local authorities that have not, at that stage, implemented financial delegation. Initially, we shall have to make estimates of the appropriate maintenance grant based on historic funding levels and the funding of comparable schools in the area.
Local education authorities are now required to publish statements of their expenditure on individual schools and the contents of those statements will be more carefully defined as a result of the Bill. The better the figures are, the less scope there will be for argument about the appropriate level of funding for grant-maintained schools.
As soon as financial delegation is in place, the determination of the school's maintenance grant will be based on the formula that the local authority has developed for allocating resources between schools. There will be necessary additions to allow for the grant-maintained school's share of the resources that it can spend on central services.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State has moved considerably from what was said in Committee. The Minister of State said:
Experience of financial delegation is absolutely essential before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is likely to consider an application
for opt-out. Was the Minister of State right, or has the Secretary of State now shifted his policy?

Mr. Baker: I was present during the debate, which was about primary schools, which are not subject to financial delegation. The interpretation of that debate is entirely compatible with the statement that I have read. At the end of the debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
I do not want to commit my right hon. Friend now on such a broad question." —[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 26 January 1988; c. 893–96.]

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State will recall that during that debate Conservative Members asked questions about the category of school that could opt out. Those questions were about numbers and not about whether the schools were primary or secondary. In response to that, the Minister of State spoke about the need for experience

of delegated financial management. The Secretary of State's assertion that the Minister of State was simply dealing with primary schools does not hold water. She was either wrong then or the Secretary of State is now shifting policy.

Mr. Baker: Primary schools are related to the fact that under our proposals, all secondary schools, as well as primary schools with more than 300 pupils, will be allowed to opt out. That is entirely compatible.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said that, when schools were allowed to opt out, it would be impossible for local authorities to plan. I think that that was the nub of his argument. I accept that local education authorities will be operating in a more uncertain climate once schools have the chance to opt out. If they are doing their best to provide the sort of service that parents want, they will have little to worry about. They might even welcome a little healthy competition, which would be welcomed by many local education authorities.
There is no reason why sensible proposals for the rationalisation of local authority school provision should slow down. Local authorities already have to take account of the existence of schools that they do not maintain in their planning of their area's educational requirements, and grant-maintained schools will not change that. I say to hon. Members who are concerned about the role of local education authorities after all our reforms are passed that there will still be a substantial role for such authorities after the implementation of financial delegation, open enrolment and grant-maintained schools. The Coopers and Lybrand report brought that out strongly and it itemised the roles and responsibilities of local education authorities.
First, and perhaps most important, local authorities will continue to be responsible for making decisions about the shape and resourcing of their school provision as a whole, and they will decide how much collectively has to be spent on education in their areas. That is a key and important role. Secondly, they will need to continue to monitor the performance of the entire system and will be responsible through their inspectors for the delivery of the national curriculum in their schools. That is an important and regular inspection review and a fundamental responsibility for local education authorities.
The LEAs will continue to have responsibilities in connection with the welfare of their pupils. Those are the statutory responsibilities of local education authorities. It is important to note that they will retain for all the pupils in their area the responsibilities that they were given under the Education Act 1981 in respect of children with special needs. Of course they will be greatly involved in the planning of further education in their areas. I suggest to hon. Members who have expressed anxiety about this matter than there will still be a considerable role for local education authorities after our reforms have worked through.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a residual administrative sweep-up role and that the opt-out arrangements that we are discussing will give encouragement to certain education entrepreneurs and that gifted head teachers may be encouraged to do the very thing that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) spoke about? They may set up on their own because of the greater freedom. Is that not one of the dangers for comprehensive local authority coverage?

Mr. Baker: I am sure that some gifted head teachers will want to opt out, but many will not. It will be for the parents and governors to decide in each case.
An accusation has been made that there will be financial discrimination between grant-maintained and local authority-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools will not be allowed to charge fees; they are explicitly denied the right to charge fees. If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had been on the Standing Committee on the Bill he would know that we have introduced complex changes in relation to charging in all schools. I assure him that grant-maintained schools will have to conform to the new system of charging that applies to all schools. The system will be the same for local authority and grant-maintained schools.
As for differential funding, I reassure hon. Members that the amount that will be available for the education of a child in a grant-maintained school will be the same as that in a local authority-maintained school. There is no question of a bias in the money going to grant-maintained schools.
My hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) asked about the degree of support that should be shown for opt-out schools. I remind my hon. Friends that the process of opting out is a three-tier process. The governing body meets and decides whether it wants to consider opting out. It will debate the matter and decide by a vote. They then wait 28 days to reconsider and reaffirm that decision. There is that safety check at the beginning because such a change is important and should not be undertaken lightly; the governors will be taking on substantial additional responsibilities.
If the governing body decides that it wants to continue further, it puts the matter to a secret ballot of all parents. We believe that a simple majority is a sufficiently high hurdle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham asked whether the hurdle should be high. I suggest to him that a simple majority is a high hurdle indeed. No Government since the war would have been elected on the suggestion that he made. Tremendous commitment is required to obtain a simple majority.

Mr. George Walden: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is not remotely shy about the proposition that he is advancing. At present, education in many of our inner cities is run by local education authorities who have been elected as on as low a turnout as one third. I encourage my right hon. Friend not to be remotely shy about this issue.

Mr. Baker: I am glad to receive my hon. Friend's support and I assure him that I am not remotely shy. I believe that the hurdle is sufficiently high, and it will require a considerable commitment. I do not believe for one moment that when a ballot occurs for opt-out there will be a low turnout.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baker: I ask my hon. Friend to restrain himself. I shall give way to him shortly because he was quite polite to me earlier.
It is fanciful to suppose that there will be a low turnout. When there is a ballot for a school to opt out, the local

education authority will almost certainly campaign hard against it. It will stir up the parents, and those who are committed will have to run a strong campaign.
It is sometimes put to me, "Suppose only 10 parents vote and six agree but four disagree?" No Secretary of State could accept that as an expression of opinion. That decision would almost certainly be set aside at judicial review.

Mr. Cormack: I cannot understand what my right hon. Friend is afraid of. I remember when he and I enthusiastically supported the Dalyell-Cunningham amendment on devolution. I do not see why we should not build on that precedent.

Mr. Baker: As an alternative precedent, there was no particular hurdle in the referendum on the European Community. Devising fancy franchises with targets of 40 or 50 per cent. leads to dreadful muddles. For instance, if one stipulates 50 per cent. and 499 out of 1,000 parents vote yes, that is a tremendous body of opinion but it would fail for the lack of one vote.
The main Opposition arguments against the measure have been that it will increase privilege and give a greater chance to the lucky ones and that there is a hidden agenda designed to take out lots of good schools. Nothing could be more fanciful.
The proposal for grant-maintained schools is popular. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central chided me about opinion polls. I have a very good one here. Indeed, I have several. On 25 January The Times reported that 34 per cent. answered yes when asked whether they supported the Government's policy to allow state schools to opt out. There was also a very good poll in the Liverpool Daily Post. [Interruption.] Labour Members should not joke about that publication. I remember meeting Harold Macmillan in the Smoking Room one day. He was giving advice to various young people—he was very good at that—and he told me, "Two papers that you must read every day, young man.… my boy …", and so on, "are the Yorkshire Post and the Liverpool Daily Post." I have followed that advice ever since.
The Liverpool Daily Postpoll found that 54 per cent. wanted to opt out, so the proposal is clearly popular. Yet Labour Front Bench still talk about privilege, as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) did today. I do not regard it as privilege to give choice to parents.
The House will know that letters between Ministers are sometimes leaked. I am glad to say that something has been leaked to me—the views of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). They came to me in a brown envelope from a well-wisher because that is how he usually gets them. I opened the envelope with great interest, only to find that the hon. Gentleman's views had been leaked to The Guardian. In today's edition there is an article by the hon. Gentleman entitled,
Will Labour be able to manage?
[Interruption.] The question is rhetorical, I believe. Clearly, the article is the opening shot in the leadership campaign which I see has been announced tonight. The hon. Member for Blackburn stands on the revisionist side of the Labour party. He is one of the young Members who are trying to bring the Labour party into the 1980s and we wish him well, although some of his Front Bench colleagues do not.
The article seeks to persuade the Labour party that consumers are important. The hon. Member for Blackburn writes:
First, we must recognise that a nation of consumers enjoying relatively high living standards becomes literally much more choosy, much more interested in choice and variety.
I see the hon. Gentleman nodding away. The article gets even better. It continues:
The expectation of choice—of independence—is one reason … why owner-occupation is so much more popular than the tenanting of a property.
Here we have it:
The aspirations of choice are now spreading from consumer goods to public service".
That is what we are offering. We are offering choice in public service. We are offering choice to parents and governors who wish to exercise it to run their own schools. I say to the hon. Member for Blackburn, "Don't stay halfway—come right over!"
By the way, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has moved on from education to the general policy of the Labour party. He has now recognised that the Labour party must move with the times and recognise the importance of parents as consumers in education. We are doing that. We are offering choice and variety — the choice and variety of grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, and a whole range of schools. That is what will emerge from our Education Reform Bill. That is why it is popular, and why it must go on the statute book.

Mr. Fatchett: I cannot delay the House for long on this occasion. However, it is clear that Conservative Back Benchers were not happy with the proposal. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has had reservations. If the Secretary of State is so certain, why does he not allow parents to have a real ballot so that the majority of parents can show their support? He is not prepared to do that.
We feel strongly about the issue and shall seek to divide the House on that basis.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders, [1 and 17 February] and the resolution this day to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 309.

Division No. 229]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Bidwell, Sydney


Alton, David
Blair, Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boyes, Roland


Armstrong, Hilary
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Battle, John
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beith, A. J.
Canavan, Dennis


Bell, Stuart
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cartwright, John





Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clay, Bob
Lamond, James


Clelland, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Coleman, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livsey, Richard


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Crowther, Stan
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cryer, Bob
McFall, John


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
McTaggart, Bob


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McWilliam, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Douglas, Dick
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eastham, Ken
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fearn, Ronald
Mullin, Chris


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Murphy, Paul


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Nellist, Dave


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Brien, William


Flynn, Paul
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Parry, Robert


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Foulkes, George
Pendry, Tom


Fraser, John
Pike, Peter L.


Fyfe, Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galbraith, Sam
Prescott, John


Galloway, George
Primarolo, Dawn


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Randall, Stuart


Golding, Mrs Llin
Redmond, Martin


Gordon, Mildred
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Graham, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rhodes James, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Richardson, Jo


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Grocott, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rooker, Jeff


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rowlands, Ted


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ruddock, Joan


Heffer, Eric S.
Salmond, Alex


Henderson, Doug
Sheerman, Barry


Hinchliffe, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Holland, Stuart
Short, Clare


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Howells, Geraint
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ingram, Adam
Stott, Roger


Janner, Greville
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Straw, Jack


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)






Turner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Vaz, Keith
Wilson, Brian


Wall, Pat
Winnick, David


Wallace, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N.



Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. Frank Cook.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Day, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Devlin, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dicks, Terry


Allason, Rupert
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Farr, Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beggs, Roy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Benyon, W.
Forth, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Franks, Cecil


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, George


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burt, Alistair
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Ground, Patrick


Butler, Chris
Grylls, Michael


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Christopher


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heddle, John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Conway, Derek
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hind, Kenneth


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)





Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Irvine, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irving, Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jack, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jackson, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Janman, Tim
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Price, Sir David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kilfedder, James
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Redwood, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Riddick, Graham


Knapman, Roger
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knowles, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knox, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Latham, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lawrence, Ivan
Ryder, Richard


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sackville, Hon Tom


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Scott, Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speller, Tony


Madel, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malins, Humfrey
Squire, Robin


Mans, Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maples, John
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stokes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Miller, Hal
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)






Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Woodcock, Mike


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Wheeler, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitney, Ray



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Wilshire, David
Mr. Tony Durant.


Wolfson, Mark

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

Clause 43

POWERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY

Amendment made: No. 294, in page 38, line 7, leave out subsections (6) to (8).—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 44

ARTICLES OF GOVERNMENT

Amendments made: No. 295, in page 39, line 9, leave out from `to' to the end of line and insert
`arrangements for appeals, in such circumstances as may be provided by the articles, to an appeal committee constituted in accordance with the articles'.

No. 296, in page 39, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'any' in line 16 and insert
`or
(ii) the permanent exclusion of any pupil from the school;
and for enabling the governing body to make joint arrangements for that purpose with the governing body of one or more other grant-maintained schools;
(dd) with respect to arrangements for the consideration and disposal of complaints relating to'.

No. 297, in page 39, line 28, at end insert—
`(ee) with respect to disciplinary rules and procedures applicable to members of the staff of the school and procedures for affording to them opportunities for seeking redress of any grievances relating to their employment;
with respect to arrangements—

(i) for affording to any member of the staff whom the governing body propose to dismiss an opportunity of making representations with respect to the proposal, including (if he so wishes) oral representations to such person or persons as the governing body may appoint for the purpose, and for requiring the governing body to have regard to any representations made by him before taking their decision; and
(ii) for affording to any member of staff whom the governing body have decided to dismiss an opportunity of appealing against their decision before they take any action to implement it;'

No. 298, in page 39, line 38, leave out 'provided' and insert 'required'.

No. 299, in page 39, line 50, leave out 'the head teacher'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 46

INITIATION OF PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION OF GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS.

Amendments made: No. 300, in page 40, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(a) the governing body decide by a resolution passed at a meeting of that body ("the first resolution") to hold such a ballot and confirm that decision by a resolution ("the second resolution") passed at a subsequent meeting of the governing body held not less than twenty-eight days after that at which the first resolution was passed; or'.

No. 301, in page 40, line 34, leave out
'occurrence' of either event mentioned in subsection (1
and insert
'passing of the second resolution required for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above or (as the case may be) on receipt of any such request as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b)'.
No. 302, in page 41, line 4, after second 'the', insert `second'.
No. 303, in page 41, line 6, at end insert
`(5A) A request such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above shall be taken as having been received by a governing body if given or sent to the chairman of the governing body or to the clerk to the governing body (and may be sent by post)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 47

BALLOT OF PARENTS

Amendments made: No. 304, in page 41, line 9, leave out from 'section' to end of line 11 and insert
`they shall secure that all necessary arrangements for the ballot are made by such body as may be prescribed ("the prescribed body").'.
No. 305, in page 41, line 13, leave out from `to' to second `to' in line 16 and insert
'secure that the prescribed body take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every person who is known to the governing body'.
No. 306, in page 41, line 44, leave out from `date' to `for' line 46 and insert
`by reference to which the information required for the purposes of this paragraph was compiled'.
No. 307, in page 42, line 11, leave out from 'In' to end of line 12 and insert
`determining the arrangements they require to be made by the prescribed body for the purposes of the ballot'. — [Mr.Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 48

PROPOSALS FOR ACQUISITION OF GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS

Amendments made: No. 308, in page 43, line 44, leave out 'of those categories'.
No. 309, in page 44, line 12, at end insert
`and the in-service training and professional development of teacher at the school'.

No. 310, in page 44, line 29, leave out from 'electors' to end of line 30.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 49

CONSTITUTION OF THE INITIAL GOVERNING BODY OF A GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOL

Amendment made: No. 311, in page 46, line 12, leave out 'such as to secure' and insert 'a number which secures'.— [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 54

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 53

Amendment made: No. 312, in page 51, line 9, at end insert
`present and voting at a meeting held for the purpose (with the chairman of the meeting having a second or casting vote in the event of an equality of votes)'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Schedule 3

THE INITIAL GOVERNING BODY OF A GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOL

Amendment made: No. 343, in page 171, line 39, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 42,'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 65

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 313, in page 63, line 5 leave out
`the following provisions of this section'
and insert 'subsection (2) below'.
No. 314, in page 63, line 7 at end insert
`(including the financial year current at the time when this section comes into force)'.
No. 315, in page 63, line 21 at end insert—
`(2A) Subject to subsection (2C) below, in respect of any financial year in respect of which a local education authority who maintain one or more special schools are required to prepare a statement under section 31 of this Act the authority shall prepare and publish a statement in accordance with subsection (2B) below with respect to the authority's financial provision for the school or schools concerned.
(2B) The statement shall contain the following particulars in relation to the financial year in question—

(a) the total amount appropriated by the authority for meeting expenditure in that year in respect of the school or, where more than one such school is maintained by the authority, in respect of all those schools, other than expenditure of a capital nature;
(b) the amount so appropriated in respect of the provision for the school or (as the case may be) for all those schools of services of any prescribed description; and
(c) where more than one school is maintained by the authority, the share in the case of each school of—

(i) the total amount so appropriated; and
(ii) any amount specified in the statement by virtue of paragraph (b) above;

which the authority regard as attributable to costs incurred or to be incurred for the purposes of that school.

(2C) Subsection (2A) above shall not require a statement to be prepared or (as the case may be) to include particulars with respect to any special school in respect of which, by virtue of any regulations made under section 32 of this Act, any information is required to be included in the statement prepared by the authority concerned under section 31 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 73

CHANGE OF CHARACTER OR ENLARGEMENT OF GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOL

Amendments made: No. 316, in page 69, line 29 leave out 'The published proposals' and insert
`Proposals published under this section'.
No. 317, in page 69 leave out lines 35 and 36.
No. 318, in page 69, line 42 at end insert—
'(3A) Proposals published under this section shall be accompanied by a statement—

(a) describing any effect the implementation of the proposals would have on provision at the school for pupils who have special educational needs; and
(b) explaining the effect of subsection (4) below.'.

No. 319, in page 69, line 46, leave out from 'electors' to end of line 47.
No. 320, in page 70, line 22, at end insert—
'(8A) No decision taken at a meeting of the governing body of a grant-maintained school that would result in the submission of proposals under this section shall have effect unless it is confirmed at a second meeting of the governing body held not less than twenty-eight days after the first.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 76

DISCONTINUANCE BY GOVERNING BODY

Amendments made: No. 321, in page 70, line 44, leave out from beginning to 'and' and insert
`decide by a resolution passed at a meeting of that body ("the first resolution") to publish proposals under this section for the discontinuance of the school and confirm that decision by a resolution ("the second resolution") passed at a subsequent meeting of that body held not less than twenty-eight days after that at which the first resolution was passed;'.
No. 322, in page 71, line 1, leave out 'their' and insert `the second'.
No. 323, in page 71, line 3, at end insert 'second'.
No. 324, in page 71, line 22, leave out from 'electors' to the end of line 23.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 81

DISCHARGE, TRANSFER AND TERMINATION OF LIABILITIES, ETC

Amendment made: No. 335, in page 78, line 45, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
`(5) Where—

(a) a school is established in pursuance of any proposals under section 13 of the 1980 Act on the premises of a discontinued grant-maintained school; and
(b) any liabilities of the governing body of that grant-maintained school have been terminated under subsection (4)(b) above;

the amount of those liabilities shall be treated for the purposes of section 14 of the 1944 Act (restrictions on discontinuance of voluntary schools) as expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State (otherwise than in connection with repairs) in respect of the premises of the new school.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 82

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE: FORMER VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 336, in page 81, leave out lines 29 to 39 and insert
`a school is established in pursuance of any proposals under section 13 of the 1980 Act on the premises of the grant-maintained school, any capital expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to the grant-maintained school


shall for the purposes of section 14 of the 1944 Act (restrictions on discontinuance of voluntary schools) be treated (if it would not otherwise be so) as expenditure so incurred (otherwise than in connection with repairs) in respect of the premises of the new school.
(8A) In subsection (8) above "capital expenditure" means any such expenditure as is mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 83

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE: FORMER COUNTY SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 325, in page 82, line 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) Where this subsection applies the capital grant expenditure shall for the purposes of section 14 of the 1944 Act (restrictions on discontinuance of voluntary schools) be treated (if it would not otherwise be so) as expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State (otherwise than in connection with repairs) in respect of the premises of the new school.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 88

INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER IV

Amendments made: No. 326, in page 87, line 6, leave out `and'.
No. 327, in page 87, line 16, at end insert
'; and

(i) references, in relation to a grant-maintained school, to the former maintaining authority shall be read, in any case where—

(i) the school was maintained by ILEA immediately before it became a grant-maintained school; and
(ii) the function formerly exercisable by ILEA in relation to, or in relation to registered pupils at, the school are by virtue of section 139(6) of this Act exercisable by an inner London council;

as references to that council.'.

No. 328, in page 87, line 42, after `59(9)', insert and subsections (1)(i) above.
No. 329, in Page 88, line 24, at end insert—
'(5A) In subsection (1)(i) above, "ILEA" and "inner London council" have the same meanings as in Part III of this Act.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 90

AGREEMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT, ETC., OF CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES

Amendments made: No. 351, in page 89, line 13, leave out 'free of charge'.
No. 352, in page 89, line 20, leave out 'such' and insert—

'(a) conditions and requirements imposed for the purpose of securing that no charge is made in respect of admission to the school or, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the agreement, in respect of education provided at the school; and
(b) such other'

No. 353, in page 89, line 28, at end insert—
'(4A) Where such payments relate to capital expenditure, the agreement shall provide for the repayment to the Secretary of State, in the event of any time of the school discontinuing or ceasing to have the characteristics specified in the agreement and in subsection (2) above, of sums determined by reference to—

(a) the value at that time of the school premises and other assets held for the purposes of the school; and
(b) the extent to which expenditure incurred in providing those assets was met by payments under the agreement.'


No. 354, in page 89, line 32, leave out 'previously' and insert '(a)'.
No. 355, in page 89, line 33, at end insert—
'or
(b) incurred by that person (otherwise than by virtue of subsection (4A) above) in consequence of the termination of the agreement.'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 91

PROHIBITION OF CHARGES, ETC., IN MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 345, in page 90, line 29, after `school', insert 'premises'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 92

PROVISION FOR CASES WHERE EDUCATION IS PROVIDED PARTLY DURING AND PARTLY OUTSIDE SCHOOL HOURS

Amendment made: No. 346, in page 91, line 15, leave out
'subsection (2) of that section'
and insert—
'section 91(2) of this Act'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 94

REGULATION OF CHARGES

Amendments made: No. 347, in' page 92, line 33, leave out
'education in question consists of individual'
and insert—
`optional extra in question consists of'.
No. 348, in page 92, line 37, leave out 'education' and insert 'tuition'.
No. 349, in page 92, line 38, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
'(7) Where charging is permitted under this section, the question of whether any charge in respect of the optional extra or the board and lodging should be made, and the amount of any charge to be made, shall be determined—

(a) in a case where the cost of the provision of the optional extra or board and lodging is met from funds at the disposal of the governing body, by the governing body; and
(b) in any other case, by the local education authority.'.

No. 350, in page 93, line 9, leave out '(8)' and insert '(7)(b)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 95

CHARGES AND REMISSIONS POLICIES

Amendments made: No. 330, in page 93, line 28, leave out 'a governing body' and insert—
`the governing body of any school other than a grant-maintained school,'.
No. 331, in page 93, line 32, at end insert—
`for any optional extra or board and lodging provided for a registered pupil at the school.'
No. 332, in page 93, line 33, leave out 'any such body or' and insert—
'the governing body of a maintained school or by a local education'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 96

CHARGES FOR BOARD AND LODGING AT BOARDING SCHOOLS

Amendments made: No. 333, in page 94, line 3, leave out `the local education authority' and insert—
'a local education authority or the governing body of the school,'.
No. 334, in page 94, line 5, at end insert—
'to that authority or body'.
No. 337, in page 94, line 6, leave out from 'pupil' to second 'the' in line 10 and insert—
'—

(a) at a school maintained by a local education authority; and
(b) under arrangements made by the authority on the ground mentioned in subsection (2B) below;'.

No. 372, in page 94, line 11, at end insert—
`(2A) Where the board and lodging are provided for the pupil—

(a) at a grant-maintained school; and
(b) under arrangements made by a local education authority on the ground mentioned in subsection (2B) below;

the whole of the charges payable under this section shall be payable by the authority instead of by the pupil's parent.
(2B) The ground referred to in subsections (2)(b) and (2A)(b) above is that, in the opinion of the authority concerned, education suitable to the pupil's age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have cannot otherwise be provided by the authority for him.'.
No. 338, in page 94, line 12, leave out 'the' and insert
`a'.
No. 339, in page 94, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—


`(a) in the case of charges payable to the authority, shall remit so much of those charges as falls in accordance with subsection (3A) below to be so remitted; and
(b) in the case of charges payable to the governing body of a grant-maintained school in respect of board and lodging provided under arrangements made by the authority, shall pay so much of those charges as falls in accordance with that subsection to be so paid.

(3A) In the case of any such charges, the amount that falls to be remitted or paid by a local education authority by virtue of subsection (3)(a) or (b) above is—

(a) such part of those charges as the authority consider ought not to be paid by the pupil's parents in order to avoid such hardship as is mentioned in that subsection;
(b) if in their opinion such hardship cannot otherwise be avoided, the whole of those charges.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 97

CHAPTER V: GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 340, in page 95, line 16, leave out 'the local education' and insert
`which is a school maintained by a local education authority, the'.
No. 341, in page 95, line 18, leave out from 'means' to `and' in line 19 and insert—


'(a) any school maintained by a local education authority; and
(b) any grant-maintained school;'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Housing Benefit

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House at the same time to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
Both are relatively detailed and small pieces of legislation which none the less make an important contribution to the housing benefit scheme as a whole.
In presenting the Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations to the House, the essential point is that the procedures which they contain in the main do no more than confirm liaison practices between local authority housing benefit offices and DHSS local offices which have existed since 1983. The current arrangements are based on the certification of housing benefit. This is a process whereby householders in receipt of supplementary benefit are automatically entitled to housing benefit through the issue of a certificate to the local authority. With the advent of income support, the distinction between householders and non-householders will disappear along with certification, and it is therefore necessary to ensure that certain information regarding benefit claimants can continue to be exchanged.
These arrangements will reduce duplication of effort both for claimants and for staff in verifying entitlement to income support and housing benefit, and at the same time ensure that in the majority of cases a local authority will be able to determine housing benefit entitlement without further contact with the claimant. These are sensible administrative arrangements which are supported entirely by the representatives of local authorities and should be approved by the whole House.
The majority of the provisions of the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations relate to the treatment of income and capital payments from the Macfarlane trust to recipients of housing benefit. The House will recall that following a powerful case put to us by the Haemophiliac Society we accepted that the position of HIV-infected haemophiliacs was wholly exceptional. Accordingly, over £10 million has been set aside for these tragic cases and this money will be paid to them through the Macfarlane trust which has now been established.
The first payments from the trust will be made on 11 April and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced last week, all payments from the trust shall be wholly disregarded in assessments of income-related benefits. Indeed, we have gone beyond this by ensuring that haemophiliacs need not even declare receipt of payments from the trust to either DHSS local offices or local authorities, so their position will remain entirely confidential. These regulations achieve both these effects for housing benefit, and yesterday similar regulations were debated in this House which achieved the same effect for both income support and family credit.
The remaining provisions in the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations will enable local authorities for three months—that is, until 30 June—to make payments on account of housing benefit where they


are unable to assess claims properly under the new scheme after 1 April. These regulations also enable them to issue short-form notices of determination for the same three month period.
Before explaining in detail how these payments will be calculated and reconciled, I would like to point out that I expect only a tiny minority of local authorities actually to need to resort to these temporary easements, particularly the payment on account facility. Indeed, it may help to put these regulations in context if I set out the results of a questionnaire on implementation progress which my Department issued to all local authorities in January this year.
By 4 March, some 315 authorities out of a total of 479 had responded. Of the 315 replying, 209 have confirmed that they expect to implement fully on time and a further 54 were awaiting confirmation that they will implement. Although some 52 have indicated they will not do so, we have reason to believe that this will prove in the end to be a considerable overestimate; I believe it paints much too gloomy a picture.
My senior officials have recently undertaken a significant programme of visits up and down the country; it was clear that, of those who said that they would not be in a position to implement on 1 April, many had erred on the side of caution and will have converted all existing claims to the new scheme and will be ready to assess properly all such claims by the relevant date.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Has the Minister seen the representations from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy on behalf of member authorities and from large authorities like Leeds which argued as recently as last week that it would have great difficulty in being ready for next month and asked if he would consider making the implementation date two months later?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to intervene in the debate. It might be better if he were to listen to what I shall say. Of course, I shall respond in due course to the debate. As I say, I think that the vast majority of local authorities will implement on the appropriate day. There may be a small minority who feel at the moment that they cannot do so. In practice, many of those will do so by the due date. I recognise that there may be a small minority who may not be able to implement.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister agree that the "small minority" about which he speaks is some 17 per cent. of local authorities and that the relevant caseload on housing benefit may be as many as 1 million? Those are covered by local authorities which say that they will not be in a position to implement at the required date.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am always prepared to give way. However, since I will respond to the debate, I think it might be better if he were to keep his questions and comments until I have had a chance to set out what the Government intend to do. The hon. Gentleman may then seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. At the end I will respond to the points which have been made.
A great deal of effort has been put into this by local authorities to achieve the result which would be in the interests of the Government, local authorities and those who are entitled to housing benefit. Although the timetable has been demanding, as I acknowledge, local authorities have responded positively. I should like to place on record my recognition of the part which they have played in achieving the results which will make possible the implementation of the new housing benefit rules.
A minority of authorities, for a variety of reasons, may face difficulties on 1 April. My Department has been asked to ease the transition to the new scheme for this group. The regulations which we are debating will achieve this. We will not postpone the implementation of the new scheme but we will produce regulations which will ease the position for local authorities which, for one reason or another, are unable to meet the target date. The regulations will provide those local authorities with an alternative method of assessment and a reduced form of notification to be sent to claimants—the latter being an easement specifically requested by the local authority associations.
We shall issue guidance to the authorities about the calculation of those payments on account of housing benefit so as to avoid the risk of large-scale overpayments. The regulations will ensure that payments that are made under the provisions are clearly identified and that subsequent overpayments and, indeed, underpayments will be fully recovered and refunded.
I trust that hon. Members will see the regulations for what they are — practical easements for the small number of local authorities that might otherwise be in difficulty on 1 April.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister elucidate the Government's thinking on one consequential effect of the regulations? Their effect is to extend to the public sector the arrangements for payment on account that are currently available to the private sector. As the Minister will appreciate, the subsidy provided by the Government for payments on account in the private sector is 97 per cent. of total expenditure. Will he confirm that the Government intend to extend that percentage to the public sector just as the regulations extend the arrangements for payment on account?

Mr. Scott: Despite the problems of many local authorities, which I understand relate to the computer software programmes that they have commissioned, they have available straightforward and simple arrangements to enable them to calculate closely the payments that they should make. I expect local authorities to implement the regulations either properly or at least closely in accordance with the proper methods, and that no special arrangements will have to be made.
In those circumstances, I believe that the regulations, which provide for contingency plans, should be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Robin Cook: I can find nothing sensible to say about the regulations dealing with rating and valuation, so I propose to say nothing on them.
The other regulations before the House amend the housing benefit rules. I welcome the exemption of payments under the Macfarlane trust. The matter caused


concern to hon. Members when the Minister made his statement, and I welcome the fact that the Government have responded to that anxiety by exempting payments from the trust from calculation for housing benefit.
But I flag that welcome with a reservation. The more beneficial we make the Macfarlane trust and the treatment of payments to haemophiliacs, the more it begs the question about the other citizens who have been infected by HIV-positive blood products in the Health Service who are not haemophiliacs and who do not qualify for payments from the trust. The Secretary of State will be aware that I have been in communication with his Department and with his office on the matter.
As with this measure, the more that we extend the unique prerogatives and privileges of the trust — to which I do not object—the more we bring into question the fact that, outside the ambit of the trust, a few citizens have, entirely innocently, been infected at the hands of the NHS. In all fairness, they should have the same recognition and treatment as the House has decided to extend to haemophiliacs.
The thrust of the regulations is the Government's recognition that many local authorities will be unable fully to implement the housing benefit rules on 1 April. The regulations offer them a rough and ready calculation by which they may proceed on 1 April. Therefore, I do not propose to oppose the regulations. They are necessary, given the hole in which the Government now find themselves.
However, this does not diminish their importance as an admission of failure, in that a number of local authorities cannot get the system up and running by 1 April. That is not their failure: it is the Government's. Those same local authorities were promised 12 months' clear notice of the details of the housing benefit regulations. They got five.
The regulations that we debated last November were laid in the first week of November. The guidance manual to local authorities, advising then how to interpret those regulations, were not issued to local authorities until January, three months before the implementation date. It is a remarkable piece of effrontery on the part of the Government to take two years in which to decide what the regulations should be and then to give the local authorities five months in which to put them into practice.
The Minister referred to the survey carried out by the Government on the state of readiness of the DHSS—[Interruption.] I crave your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you advise those hon. Members who find that they have important things to discuss to hold their conversations in the Tea Room? The Chamber was not provided as a place for them to gossip in, but for official speeches in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I hope the House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Cook: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Institute of Housing has today issued a quite different interpretation of the Government's survey of local authorities. It issued a press release this morning under the heading:
Time Running Out for Crisis-Hit Councils".
According to the figures in that press statement, the survey to which the Minister referred contains replies from 281 councils, of which 101 are not in a position to implement the scheme fully on 1 April.
I have been carrying out my own survey of local authorities' state of readiness. It is a pity that the Government did not inform me that the DHSS was carrying out theirs; that would have saved me a lot of postage. The picture that emerges from my survey is markedly worse even than that which appears in the Institute of Housing's gloss on the Minister's study. I have, to date, received 119 replies from authorities, of which only 59 are confident that they can implement the scheme in full on 1 April. The other half—almost precisely—state either that they will have no scheme in operation by 1 April or that they will have only part of one. One authority, which will not be assisted by tonight's regulation, does not anticipate having a full scheme in operation until 31 December.
I stress that the replies from local authorities in difficulties cross all party lines. Among those that have informed me that they will have no scheme in operation on 1 April are Cherwell, Havant and Merton. These are not Labour-controlled, or even Liberal-controlled councils. Nor is it surprising that they find themselves in that difficulty, because the blame does not lie with them. It is impossible for them to perform better than the software with which they are supplied. Some software suppliers have now advised local authorities that they cannot deliver in time for implementation on 1 April.
The most conspicuous case of this — the Minister managed to avoid mentioning it, but let us have it out in the open—is ICL, which is servicing 90 local authorities. It is advising them that the first tranche of software will be available on 27 March, which, even if there are no snags in the software, and no additional training is required for staff, leaves those 90 authorities precisely four days, of which two are a weekend, to key in all the details of their cases.
There will be no facility for revision of the scheme until a further software package is provided on 24 April, and the software package will not be completed until June. I presume that that is the significance of the date of 30 June in the regulations.
As this is a non-controversial measure, we shall not divide the House, and I have no wish to score points at the expense of the private sector. In fairness to that great computer company ICL, I must say that the major task of putting on to computer the 105 paragraphs of the housing regulations was rendered impossible by the short time scale and the complexity of those 105 paragraphs.
Among the replies that I received from local authorities, I have a number of obiter dicta from the chairmen of the housing committees, who stress that point. The chairman of Merton council—not a Labour council —observed:
There is no doubt that the late laying of the regulations made the job of producing software almost impossible within the timescale allowed.
The chairman of the Derby housing committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is with me on the Front Bench tonight—said:
Our experience has confirmed all our fears that the timetable has been totally unrealistic. Even if we are operating in April, we will not be giving a proper service.
By far the most stark comment came from the chairman of the Birmingham housing committee, who said:
It does appear that deadlines were set with the sole aim of seeing how many could be broken.
I hope that the Minister will not deny the difficulty of that tight deadline; his predecessor had the grace to admit it.
I have the minutes of a meeting between the DHSS Ministers and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 12 May 1987—a date that is engraved on the hearts of many hon. Members. The minutes state:
The Minister apologised for the delay and assured the Associations that 'the regulations were not very far away' … The Minister would give no specific assurances as to the date of the regulations and said we would not 'necessarily have to wait until after June 11th'"—
a date that is engraved even larger on the hearts of many hon. Members.
The minutes continued:
In fact he hoped 'to deliver within the next few days'.
That was 12 May. The final version of the regulations were not laid within the next few days, nor the next few weeks, nor the next few months. They were not laid until the first week of November, a full six months later. The interval between that meeting with the Minister, at which he promised that they would be laid within the next few days, and the publication of the final version of the regulations was actually longer than the local authorities were allowed for implementation of the scheme after they were published.
There is another area in which the DHSS must accept responsibility for the position that we find ourselves discussing tonight. It is the quite clear and deliberate underfunding of the cost of the transfer to the new scheme. The local authorities estimate that the national expenditure by local authorities on transition to the new scheme will be £46 million. The Government grant to assist with the hardware for the transition is only £25 million —about half the total expenditure. From the evidence that I have received from individual local authorities, I believe that that estimate is correct.
In case I am accused of being partial and citing evidence only from Labour heartlands, I shall give the figures for East Sussex, an area in which the merits of Labour representations have not yet been adequately recognised. There are seven district councils in East Sussex, whose total expenditure on transition to the new system is £796,000. The total grant from the Government is £426,000—barely 55 per cent. of the total.
I cannot resist rubbing home the extent to which Labour councils have attempted to achieve this as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible by mentioning that only one of the seven is a Labour council —Brighton. Brighton managed to keep its expenditure nearer to the Government grant than any of the other six councils, yet, despite the competence and efficiency of its housing committee, it failed to achieve that level and is therefore left with a net expenditure on the scheme.
The conclusions are clear. The Government have sought to introduce this major change on the cheap, shuffling half the cost on to local authorities. They have introduced the scheme in a hurried and impossible time scale. It has baffled the brains of the top computer firms which have had to turn it into a software package within the available time. In the 59th minute of the 11th hour, at the last gasp, the House funds itself debating these regulations which attempt to retrieve the situation.
It is characteristic of the Government's meanness of spirit that everyone but themselves will have to pay for their delays and errors. The regulations that the House approved only last November provided that local authorities could not recover an overpayment where it

occurred through official error and where the claimant had no way of knowing that he or she had been overpaid. The regulations consolidated what had been the existing position on housing benefit for quite some time.
The effect of the regulations which we are now considering is that, if a local authority commits an official error during the transitional period to 30 June, it will have the power to recover that overpayment from the claimant, even though the claimant may have had no reasonable way of knowing that he or she had been overpaid. In view of the complexity of the regulations, it is hardly surprising that many claimants will be wholly innocent of the knowledge that they have been overpaid.
As the Minister said, there may well be some underpayments, but the overpayments are much more likely to exceed the underpayments because the new scheme that takes effect on 1 April is less generous than the current scheme. It is likely that errors will err on the side of overpayment rather than underpayment. One can only conclude that there will be hardship when the new scheme is put in place—as we have always known—but it will be all the greater if the new, correct calculation arrives after three months of overpayments which the claimant is now expected to repay. That is wholly unjust.
I asked the Minister about subsidy arrangements. I confess that, although I attended closely to his response, I am not sure that he entirely answered my point. Perhaps, during the debate, the hon. Gentleman will have a greater opportunity to reflect and take advice and so give a more complete reply when he responds. I shall put my query to the Minister in greater detail than I could in an intervention.
There are no regulations before the House on the subsidy arrangements for the new housing benefit system. I understand that such regulations are yet to come before us. It is yet another entertaining comment on the extent to which the Government are behind schedule with the scheme that at this stage, only a fortnight before implementation, we still do not have before the House the regulations providing for the subsidy of that scheme.
I am advised that 1 April has particular significance in terms of the procedures of the House. If the regulations on the subsidy arrangements are published before 1 April, they are subject to affirmative proceedings. If they are published after 1 April, they are subject only to negative proceedings. Having made that discovery, I suspect that we can be confident that the regulations will be published after rather than before 1 April. I can only wonder in retrospect how we let this slip through in the Social Security Act 1986.
As the regulations are not published, there is evidently time for the Minister to reflect on how he will integrate these provisions into the general subsidy arrangements. In general, the subsidy under housing benefit is 97 per cent. of all expenditure, with the exception of subsidy for overpayments in the public sector, which is only 15 per cent. The device under discussion extends to the public sector the system of payments on account, which are currently available for private tenants, for which the subsidy is, and always has been, 97 per cent.
I therefore put it to the Minister—I hope to carry at least my hon. Friends on this, if not the whole House—that if he is to extend the device to the public sector, he must extend to public sector tenants the same basis of subsidy and pay 97 per cent. for any overpayments that cannot be recovered by the local authorities.
Opposition Members strongly object to the new housing benefit scheme. I shall not weary the House by detailing all the objections that we made when we debated the parent regulations on 19 November. Suffice it to remind the House that the regulations will leave 6 million claimants worse off and 1 million claimants deprived of housing benefit altogether. Among those 1 million will be several hundred thousand who will lose their entire benefit as a result of the new rules on capital savings.
I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Fayell) is not with us tonight, because last night he made a remarkable and memorable intervention in our debate. He said that the new system of benefit was needed to ensure that those who were out of work did not succeed in getting benefits that compared with those of people in work. The effect of the housing benefit regulations —particularly in relation to the capital savings rule—is to penalise precisely those who have taken the Government at their word by being prudent and thrifty and putting by a modest nest egg for their retirement. They now find that that deprives them of any right to housing benefit.
We condemn and reject the system that will be in place on 1 April, and we cannot but contrast it with the largesse offered in the Budget only last week, which gave sums well in excess of the savings from this mean and nasty measure to a mere 3 per cent. of the population. The least that we might have expected is that the Government, in introducing the new scheme, would not have displayed incompetence to pile even greater hardship on those hit by the changes in the benefit system. The regulations confirm that the Government have been incompetent in their introduction of the new scheme and that they are determined that the price of that incompetence will he paid by the victims in restoring any overpayment in the early period of shambles that will follow 1 April.
We cannot oppose these regulations, because they are a makeshift measure made necessary by the Government's own failure, but we thoroughly condemn the measure that gave birth to them. In a sense, we almost welcome tonight's regulations, as they are an early and damning admission of the pain and hardship that will break above the heads of so many claimants when the scheme is implemented in the coming weeks.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The position of my hon. Friends and myself is very similar to that of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). We share his concern and fear about, and his opposition to, the substantive changes, which may well affect two thirds of the families in my constituency — the number that depend on some form of supplementary benefit.
We will not oppose either of the sets of regulations. The first is a necessary administrative measure that was foreshadowed earlier and the second, as the Minister said, is necessary, given that the system would otherwise not have been able to operate as was originally envisaged. The regulations will improve arrangements that would otherwise have been very unmanageable. Therefore, I shall limit my remarks to a couple of questions about the Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations, and to some points about the general regulations, which are obviously of greater substance.
Obviously, I appreciate that the supply of information regulations relate, as the Minister fairly said, to the transfer of information between agencies. However, there are two practical matters that may arise in relation to the need for information by people who will be affected by these regulations and by the Social Security Act 1986. Both matters were put to me by my local authority, which is not one of the authorities anticipating great difficulties on 1 April. Therefore, my authority was not simply complaining about the date of implementation. However, that is a problem that faces other authorities and they make that complaint justifiably.
It looks as if there will be a problem because people who will receive less or no housing benefit and who will have to pay some or all of their rent will not realise that. That will come about as the result of a change in the level of payment coming through the housing benefit system. I know from constituency experience, as I expect the Minister does, that the result will be that people will begin to accrue rent arrears. Those arrears will initially be unseen because they will go on paying the same amount without realising that they have to make an additional contribution. At the moment, those most likely to be affected are those who have all their rent paid but who, after 1 April, will have to pay some or all of it.
I am concerned about how the process of supplying information will be subsidised and financed so that the people affected can be informed, particularly if the changes affect them adversely, and so that they will not find themselves with increasing rent arrears.
The second and linked issue is that one of the consequences of the regulations is that people may have to make a 20 per cent. rate contribution. People may think that they do not have to pay and, therefore, they will not pay. The concern of the officers in Southwark—it is a point of general importance, and I make it because I believe that it will be generally useful—is that the cost of chasing up those who will have to make that 20 per cent. contribution but do not do so, because they are not aware that they should, could be more than the revenue that would be raised for the local authority in question. That could be dealt with by supplying information. The Government should ensure that local authorities are given

the financial wherewithal to provide that information so that people will not face rent or rate arrears from the beginning of next month.
On the general regulations, I join the hon. Member for Livingston in welcoming the provision in the regulations excluding payments made to haemophiliacs and the Macfarlane Trust. The Minister has traced the history of that change and the representations made from the Haemophilia Society, whose offices I pass every day on my way home just over Westminster bridge in that little strip of Lambeth between here and Southwark. It is a welcome move and the Haemophilia Society is grateful for it, as are we.
In relation to the general matters—these are perhaps the most substantial issues that we are debating—there will be a substantial delay in some authorities implementing the scheme. I do not know—and I do not think that the Minister knows—the exact figure. I know that research has been carried out about what it is likely to be. I also know the figure that was given to the Department in January. Of the 312 authorities that responded, 66 per cent. said that they expected to be ready on time and 54 per cent. said they hoped to be ready but were not sure. Clearly, many authorities will not be ready.

Mr. David Lightbown (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): That is 120 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: Seventeen per cent. hoped to be ready but were not sure, and another 17 per cent. were certain that they would not be ready. Thirty four per cent. told the Department that they would definitely not be ready or might not be ready. That is just over one third of the authorities. I accept that as the day draws nearer authorities will speed up, because that is in the nature of things.
There are certainly specific problems and I hope that the Minister will have the grace to admit that these problems are not of the local authorities' making. As the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and authorities of all persuasions have made clear, the fault lies with the Government because of the delay in the regulations and the delay in implementing them. The Minister shakes his head as if to say that that is not the case. Looked at objectively, it will be seen that the delay was caused by the Government because they produced the regulations just 10 days before the date of implementation.
The professional agencies and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy are not accused by the Government or by anybody else of being partisan in these matters, and they make it clear that the delay should be accepted by the Government as their fault. Originally, this was to be implemented a year ago, but it was put back. It is very unfair for any blame to be attributed to local authorities.
I made inquiries of colleagues. One of them, Councillor Maggie Clay of Leeds, passed me a letter sent by Leeds city council to colleagues in Leeds and all Leeds councillors. That made it clear that in Leeds the delay was caused by the delay in the regulations. Because of that, the guidance circulars were not received until February, and the two that most affected software were not received until August 1987 and November 1987.
Leeds contracted with a software supplier in September 1986 and the software was to be in two parts. One part allowed preparatory work to be undertaken and the other


was the housing benefit software for implementation in April. Obviously, time must be allowed for manufacturers to produce that software and the planned date for ADC software was October 1988, while the main software was to be released in January to February. Once released to the city or local authority, it has to be tested, staff have to be trained, and it has to be integrated into in-house systems. For all those things three or four months is quite reasonable.
The ADC software for Leeds was delivered a month behind schedule because of the lateness of the regulations. Since then, the council has met the supplier's managing director and everybody has worked closely, and regular monitoring has taken place. The supplier announced on 3 March, just 20 days ago, that the software could be released only on a phased basis between 11 March and 28 April. That means that in some cases it will be released after the regulations are in force.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the delay was caused by the delay in the regulations, which is the fault of Government, and that he will not blame local authorities. The regulations will be some help to local authorities, but I hope that the Government will help them more so that they can get out of a mess that is not of their making. Can the Minister tell the House over what period repayment will be permitted? One of my hon. Friends asked about that in Committee when the parallel statutory instruments were debated last week.
If the Government provide all the necessary publicity and information about why repayments are necessary, what will that mean in practice for local authorities and people? Money will be needed to ensure that those who depend on benefit, and the local authorities who are affected by the regulations, are not harmfully affected.
It is far too late for us to be debating the regulations. Regulations coming into effect in 10 days' time should have been debated a long time ago. We have no option but to let them through, but I hope that the Minister will admit culpability on behalf of his Department and come to the rescue of local authorities, who will need help if they are not to be further disadvantaged by housing benefit changes that, for many people, will be extremely adverse.

11 pm

Mr. Tony Banks: I am delighted to see that the Chamber is looking considerably tidier than it was last night, when we discussed the social security regulations. Last night, I raised a point of order about the state of the Chamber, but clearly the Prime Minister must have whisked through here with her spike and her black bag followed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. We must be eternally grateful to them for the fact that the Chamber is so clean. It is a pity that she did not collect all the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations on her way through.
It is a pity that, at this time of night, we are debating something of such significance to so many people in so many constituencies. I look forward to the day when Parliament's proceedings are televised, because unfortunately, although these regulations will affect many people, I doubt whether the newspapers tomorrow will report anything of the deliberations on these regulations. That is a sad commentary on journalists, the press and the media. I suspect that I know what the headline political

stories will be tomorrow, but they will have nothing to do with the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations or the Education Reform Bill.
I commend to the House a page that appeared in today's Daily Mirror, which is headed,
Now it's Thatcher, Thatcher, benefit-snatcher".
It is further headed, "Penny pinching the poor". I shall read the article for the benefit of those who do not take the Daily Mirror. It says:
There will be some really nasty news for Britain's worst-off families in a couple of weeks.
They're most of the seven million who get help with their rent and rates. Next month they'll find out how they will fare under the new Housing Benefit scheme.
More than a million will lose all the help they've been getting. Five million will have their payments cut, including 2½ million pensioners. And it's all because penny-pinching Mrs. Thatcher wants to cut the cost of housing benefit by £500 million.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, compare that with the largesse that was handed out to the richest of our society the other week.
Late at night, we are debating regulations that will affect some of the poorest people of our country. Yet only the other week we were hearing about the massive tax handouts that were being given to the richest. That is the contrast that makes the policies and priorities of the Government so obscene and so unacceptable to the majority of people in this country.
Regulation 8 deals with the payment of benefit on account when a full assessment cannot be carried out. As we know, normally, housing benefit should be paid by a local authority within 14 days after it has received all the information relevant to the claim such as rent book or bank statement. Where the authority has been unable to make the payment, not because of any delay by the claimant in providing information, the local authority can make a payment on account, which is an estimated payment.
Under the current regulations, if a local authority makes an overpayment, and it is its fault, the local authority can recover only the first four weeks of overpayment. If it is an overpayment made because of a claimant's error, existing regulations allow that to be recovered in full.
It has become clear that a number of local authorities are not yet fully prepared for the implementation of the regulations. New regulation 91A states that up to 30 June 1988 payments on account may be made by a local authority of
such amount as it considers reasonable".
That is to allow authorities more time to get their systems in operation to make accurate assessments.
The benefit is fully recoverable from the claimant so long as the housing benefit staff inform the claimant that it can be recovered. That is clearly unfair, because it could lead to considerable amounts of money being recovered by the local authority when it eventually makes the correct assessment. The claimant will have budgeted on the basis of the income that he or she has been receiving to date. It may come as a surprise to Conservative Members to know that housing benefit claimants are not well off. The 46,000 who receive housing benefit in Newham are certainly not well off, and they will not be in a position to put money aside in case they have to repay some of it later.
If repayment is by deductions from future benefit, as it usually is, the claimant will be expected to live on a severely restricted income. What experience have


Conservative Members of living on supplementary benefit or the incomes of people on housing benefit? I see the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), sprawled in his usual recumbent position and smiling. Given the capacious size of his belly, he would find it difficult to survive on the benefit levels that people in my borough have to put up with. Shame on you, Sir!

Mr. David Winnick: I share my hon. Friend's sentiments in every respect. Does he agree that it is good news that the Under-Secretary of State who replied for the Government yesterday—the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) — has apparently resigned and is now sitting on the Conservative Back Benches? Could it be that he has resigned in protest at the meanness of the housing benefit cuts and the way in which millions of our fellow citizens will be penalised from next month?

Mr. Banks: The young gentleman in question always struck me as far too young to be a Minister. He seems to be retreating as far away as possible from this unsavoury proposal, but he is still just about here.

Mr. Winnick: He is writing his resignation speech.

Mr. Banks: It must be a very long one, as he has been scribbling away all evening. I suspect that he is filling in his multiple share applications.
If a claimant is in no way responsible for overclaiming, it seems extremely harsh to penalise the claimant in the way that the Government propose.
The second important issue that I wish to raise is that of subsidy arrangements. The draft regulations contain no information as to how overpayments will be treated for subsidy purposes. Local authority associations have made strenuous representations to the DHSS that provisional payments should attract the full subsidy of 97 per cent. If no special arrangements are made, are we to assume that overpayments of this kind will be treated in the same way as ordinary miscalculations? If overpayment is due to an official error, it attracts only 15 per cent. subsidy. The Minister will doubtless wish to return to that. No doubt the Government will argue that overpayments of this kind are fully recoverable, so local authorities should not receive the full subsidy, because they can get their money back.
First, speaking on behalf of the London borough of Newham, I believe that it is unfair that the money should be recovered from the claimant, because the fault does not lie with the claimant. Secondly, we are talking about a crisis, certainly in my borough. Many local authorities are not ready to deal with the thousands of claims that they will have to process. One has only to recall the fiasco in November 1983 and in April 1984 and remember what happened to millions of claimants when they were first transferred to housing benefit. We do not want a repetition of that chaos.
As I said yesterday to the young gentleman then speaking on behalf of the Government but now retreating across the Back Benches, many people in my part of London do not even know their present entitlements, let alone what is to hit them on 1 April. As a Member of Parliament who has weekly advice surgeries, I know how

many people already come to me not fully understanding how their social security entitlement is worked out, and I know what it will be like in my office in Stratford come 1 April.
Again I ask the Minister precisely what I asked yesterday: what are the Government doing to inform people in areas such as the London borough of Newham precisely what changes will be made and how they will be effected?
The regulations are difficult enough for Members of Parliament to understand, and there is nothing especially intelligent about the average Member of Parliament in comparison with the average citizen of this country, but at least we have good advisers to tell us what the regulations mean. They are difficult to understand and God knows how many people in my part of east London will make sense of the regulations that will affect them so sorely.
If local authorities are not ready to administer the regulations, the Government may ask, "Whose fault is that? The regulations were published a year ago. What have local authorities been doing since then?". I give it to the Minister that he did actually say that local authorities have made the most strenuous efforts to get themselves ready for the changes.
In my borough of Newham, the local authority general purposes committee debated the new regulations as long ago as April 1987, and took a decision to purchase the ICL assessment package, known as housing benefit information system, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. The preparatory work has been done by Newham council staff. However, in February 1988, ICL informed all its local authority HBIS users—about 90 in all—that the schedule for live releases of HBIS software had slipped to the extent that significant parts of the system—that is the capacity to amend or cancel weekly benefit entitlement, and to input manual adjustments—will not be released until 24 April 1988. As we know, the scheme is due to be implemented at the beginning of April this year.
For that reason, which is totally outside the control of the local authority, my borough will be forced to make payments based on assessments under the current scheme, and estimated payments under the new scheme for new claimants. I am advised that the borough's only alternative is to make manual assessments of its 46,000 claimants. The cost of estimated payments could be as much as £50,000 per week. As I told the Minister's colleagues yesterday, that is a dreadful burden for us to meet in Newham, which is the second most deprived local authority area in England and Wales.
It is not the fault of Newham that we may be obliged to make use of the power to make interim payments, nor, I imagine, is it the fault of those other 90 local authorities which are also customers of the ICL HBIS programme. For that reason, I ask the Minister to consider seriously, first, that overpayments made as a result of delays in implementing the new housing benefit scheme should not be recoverable from the claimant; and, secondly, that full subsidy — that is 97 per cent. — should be made on overpayments made as a result of interim payments on account paid between the beginning of April and the end of June 1988. People should be able to reclaim the full payment.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those points. Then I can at least go back and say that being here at this time of night to debate with this soulless and heartless Government was not altogether wasted and that we were able to get a small crumb of comfort for the people of Newham, who desperately need everything that they can get, even from this ruthless and heartless Government.

11 13 pm

Mr. Scott: I congratulate Opposition Members on being able to sustain this brief debate despite the fact that they could not keep their troops here to vote against the regulations. Indeed, they have very little quarrel with the totally beneficial effects of the regulations and I am slightly astonished that they did not allow them to go through virtually on the nod.
On the history of these reforms, some Opposition Members seemed to suggest that there was great surprise about the regulations, that somehow they had been sprung upon the House. Their outline has been known for many months, if not years. Reviews have been set up, and the whole system has been debated more than once in the House, not least towards the end of last year, when the whole body of regulations affecting housing benefit were debated at length and approved by the House by a majority of 125. These are tidying-up regulations to deal with two minor matters—

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Mistakes.

Mr. Scott: They are not mistakes, but minor matters.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman could have made a speech, but I shall give way.

Mr. Winnick: The Minister should be grateful that he is able to respond to the debate sooner than he would have done had I made a speech.
Does he not recognise that the Opposition have consistently opposed the housing benefit regulations? Does he not recognise now that it is all the more obscene that those who have lifetime savings of over £6,000 will receive no housing benefit at all, and those with savings of between £3,000 and £6,000 will lose part of their housing benefit after a Budget that ensured that the richest 5 per cent. got 40 per cent. of all the tax cuts and concessions? There was once an hon. Member for Chelsea who was highly critical of the Government's economic policy. Had he remained on the Back Benches, he would probably have shared, if only privately, the views that I have just expressed.

Mr. Scott: I do not want to tease the hon. Gentleman too much. He had every opportunity to make a speech during the debate. The word "obscene" seems to spring to his lips with relentless regularity these days. We have debated the principle of housing benefit many times. The regulations are nothing to do with that. To be fair to most Opposition Members, they have not concentrated on the broad principle of their objection to the housing benefit system that we are introducing. Some of their speeches have been pretty peripheral to the impact of the regulations, but they have concentrated on them. But I understand the self-indulgence of the hon. Gentleman, who always likes to allow himself to revert on such occasions to more general principles, as it is obviously too demanding to concentrate on the detail.
This is a storm in a teacup—

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister think that this is a storm?

Mr. Scott: Perhaps a squall would be a more appropriate description.
The debate has constituted an effort to make something out of what is really nothing. These are beneficial arrangements to provide for two things, the first of which is Macfarlane trust payments. The House understands that that is a sensible and compassionate way in which to deal with that circumstance. We are left with the single remaining issue, which is the arrangements that are being made for that small number of local authorities—

Mr. Simon Hughes: How many?

Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment.
It is a small number of local authorities which, for one reason or another, will be unable, when the system comes into operation, fully to implement the system of housing benefit.
Many of those that have said that they will not be able fully to implement the system will be able to make payments to housing benefit claimants which are close, if not precisely very close indeed, to the entitlements. They may have to refine some of the marginal elements, but it will be difficult for any local authority to say that it is not possible now, after the notice that has been given and the time that local authorities have had to make the arrangements, to get close to being able to assess the entitlements of housing benefit claimants.

Mr. Tony Banks: I accept what the Minister is saying, but he would hardly notice a quid, and most hon. Members would not be too bothered about whether they had £1 less or more in their pocket, but to the people we are talking about it is crucial. Therefore, will the Minister say that, even if it is only a small amount, those people will not be required to pay it back, through no fault of their own?

Mr. Scott: I cannot say that to the hon. Gentleman. It will be for the local authorities to try to calculate the payments that are made to claimants as accurately as possible. They will be responsible for reclaiming any overpayments. The Government and local authorities have made arrangements to ensure that the claimants are well aware of the situation that will face them as the new system is introduced. In fact, many local authorities have tended to err on the conservative side to ensure that, if any error is made, it will not lead to any recoupment of benefit from claimants, but rather a payment to top up what they have been paid following the calculations.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) took me to task on a number of issues and perhaps some were more justified than others. One of his complaints was that we promised to deliver the regulations in May 1987 but that they were not delivered until November. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the regulations could not be laid fully until the uprating statement had been made last year. Of course the final draft regulations were laid in May 1987 as promised, but the proper regulations could not be put before the House until the uprating statement had been made.
The idea that local authorities have been given insufficient time to prepare for the reforms is a difficult argument to sustain.

Mr. John Battle: The Minister appears to be making light of the problems faced by local authorities. Is it not correct that some 90 local authorities, including Leeds, which is one of the largest, have contracts with a computer company that has been unable to deliver the systems? Why should the local authorities be penalised when it is patently not their fault?

Mr. Scott: It is for local authorities to make arrangements with such companies as can deliver the sort of software facilities that are needed to implement the reforms. The vast majority of the authorities have been able to make such arrangements. There may be a minority that will be unable for one reason or another — I acknowledge the great efforts that have been made to deliver the whole exercise on time—fully to implement the new system for a few weeks. I do not blame local authorities for that. We are introducing the regulations to provide an easement in the position in which local authorities might otherwise find themselves. I had hoped that the House would be in the mood to accept that that is a sensible and wise thing for which we should provide.
Everyone knew what the position would be upon implementation. I should draw the attention of the hon. Member for Livingston to the fact that the two largest housing benefit authorities in Scotland are Glasgow and Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman will be particularly familiar with those authorities.
When circulating his slightly unsophisticated questionnaire, I do not know whether he bothered to ask Glasgow and Edinburgh how they were placed regarding the implementation of the housing benefit system. In the past week, after a visit from senior officials from the DHSS, I asked for a report to see how those authorities were preparing. Despite the fact that Glasgow has the largest housing benefit caseload in the country, it has achieved the implementation of the housing benefit system on time. If Glasgow and Edinburgh can achieve the system on time, I cannot believe that there has been insufficient time for other smaller housing authorities with smaller caseloads.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that Birmingham had criticised the delay in the regulations and the guidance that had been issued. Birmingham has now confirmed that it is expecting to make all the payments under the new rules well in time for full implementation.
During the debate, it has been alleged that claimants will be unaware that benefit may be overpaid and that recovery will be sought. The regulations and guidance issued to local authorities have ensured that payments on account must be identified as such to claimants. At the time of any payment, claimants must be told that, if there are errors and if overpayment is ever incurred, they will be expected to repay any such payment and that any underpayment will be reimbursed. There is no earthly reason why any claimant should be unaware of the terms upon which any contingency payment may be made.

Mr. Robin Cook: It is the case that the regulations provide that those who are assessed under the regulations will be served with, as it were, a public health warning that this is an interim assessment. But that provides no guidance to the claimants whether they have been overpaid or underpaid and if so by how much. It makes it impossible for them to budget against the time when they are served with the correct assessment. If a tenant were

capable of working out whether he was overpaid or underpaid, why would a local authority serve him with a rough calculation in the first place?

Mr. Scott: Even if a local authority cannot get its full computer programme in operation, it should be able to calculate these sums. In practice—the hon. Gentleman must know this as he is broadly familiar with the terms of the housing benefit system—it will be possible for local authorities using simple methods of calculation to get close to the precise benefit that is available to any claimant. Some fine tuning may have to be introduced in the subsequent week or two before full implementation is possible, but I do not believe that any claimant will face a substantial burden of under or overpayment.
We have taken a great deal of trouble to ensure that claimants are told through leaflets and advertising, in the press and elsewhere, and that they are aware that a new system is coming into operation. The vast majority of local authorities will be able fully to implement the system on the date of implementation, and those that cannot will have only a marginal error involved in the payments they make.
This debate has been sustained with great difficulty. I well understand that any mention of housing benefit and, indeed, of social security reforms is bound to provoke the Opposition to some discussion, but—

Mr. Simon Hughes: It sounds as if the Minister is coming to the end of his remarks. I asked a couple of specific questions which he certainly has not dealt with, and I should be grateful for answers. He says that we are extending the debate artificially, but there have been some genuine questions. One was: how long will people have to repay? Another was: will local authorities have their money reimbursed for their expenditure on explaining what is going on?

Mr. Scott: I do not believe that there is any case for the Government providing extra funds to local authorities for administrative costs. The vast majority of local authorities have already implemented this system fully on time. The costs that would be involved in advising claimants of over or underpayments and the handling of that would be so minuscule that it would not contribute to the proper administration of the system to provide small sums. It is for local authorities to decide with claimants who may have been under or overpaid the arrangements whereby that can be adjusted in future. The sums involved will be small compared with the weekly benefits that will be available to claimants. I should not have thought that any great trouble would be involved in arranging either the reimbursing of an underpayment or the recoupment of an overpayment.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am primarily interested in my borough of Newham. I am advised that, because of ICL's failure to deliver the contract, Newham has problems. I want to hear from the Minister how we can deal with that. What will he do so that Newham can ensure that people are not penalised for a mistake that is not theirs, and at least advise everybody fully? What extra resources will the Minister make available to Newham so that we can advise the 46,150 claimants of housing benefit exactly what the regulations mean?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman has had as much notice of the arrangements for housing benefit as the housing


authorities in Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere. They decided to place a contract with a company which could provide them with the software to enable them to deliver. It is for them and the contractor to arrange these matters.
The vast majority of local authorities have managed to do this in the interests of their claimants, and the vast majority of people entitled to housing benefit will get their proper entitlement when we implement the new system. I do not believe that I have any duty to stand at this Dispatch Box and provide extra resources for Newham to dig it out of a hole because it is incapable of managing.

Mr. Thomas Graham: If the sum of money will be so marginal, why does not the Minister wipe it off and let the overpayments remain? Would not that be the best way forward?

Mr. Scott: Local authorities should be given every incentive to manage properly the sums of public money that are at their disposal. I can think of many local authorities, many represented by Opposition Members, which would be totally irresponsible in the way that they handle public money. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 14th March, be approved—[Mr. Dorrell.]

PETITION

Education Reform

Ms. Joan Walley: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of parents in my constituency, Smallthorne primary school and Norton county primary school. I have many hundreds of names of people who live in Smallthorne, Sneyd Green, Fegg Hayes, Bradeley, Ball Green, Goldenhill, Milton, Longport, Middleport, Packmoor, Cobridge, Sandyford and Rookery.
I am particularly pleased to be able to present the petition during the passage of the Education Reform Bill. It is from parents whose children receive the best education from Staffordshire county council, a local education authority which is committed to education for all children regardless of the ability of the parents to pay for that education. People in my constituency feel that education should be available to everybody and not just to those who are advantaged. They are angry and reject totally the Government's proposals which are going through the House this very week to change the whole nature of the education system.
The prayer of the petition is:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will refuse to pass legislation which will not maintain and increase opportunities in education for all children, promote interesting and imaginative teaching in schools, promote equality in schools and between children, increase resources for education, and maintain the role of local education authorities to manage schools in combination with governing bodies and the schools themselves.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Postal Charges (Highlands and Islands)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. James Wallace: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the issue of the Post Office surcharges, particularly on the Datapost service, to destinations in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The subject caused much disquiet in my constituency and, indeed, in the Western Isles and in Northern Ireland at this time last year when the Post Office announced a 20 per cent. surcharge on the Datapost service to the Scottish islands—with no mention of the Welsh or English islands—to the Isle of Man and to Northern Ireland. The issue was raised in early-day motions at that time by myself, by the right hon. Donald Stewart, who was then the Member of Parliament for the Western Isles, and by right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. Regrettably, there was no satisfactory response or action by the Post Office.
There was a further outcry at the beginning of March this year when it was announced that the surcharge for the Scottish islands, which this time was extended to the Highlands, was to be 35 per cent., and that for the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland it was to be 25 per cent. Early-day motions in the names of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) have between them attracted 79 signatories protesting about the latest imposition.
The outcry was greater perhaps because it was accompanied by the resignation from the chairmanship of the Scottish Post Office Board of Mr. Ian Barr on the grounds that there was not adequate consultation with him, nor had he been given any costing figures for traffic levels to justify the increase. He described the increase as
discriminative, arbitrary and aimed at enhancing profits without regard to the social responsibility which the Post Office corporately has placed on it.
The Post Office has denied the charge of lack of consultation, and there has been a fairly acid exchange of letters in the columns of the Scottish press. I do not want this debate to be sidetracked on to the rights and wrongs of Mr. Barr's protest, but I make two observations. First, one of Mr. Barr's complaints was that the Post Office definition of "the Highlands" was not clear. It appears that it extends to what we now understand as including Grampian region, excluding Aberdeen. Few Scots would recognise that definition. Secondly, the decision that has been taken is symptomatic of centralised decision-making that pays insufficient attention to the impact of those decisions in remote areas. I say that notwithstanding the personal commitment given by the chairman of the Post Office, which I accept, to keep in mind the interests of rural as well as urban areas.
A debate such as this is not the time to rehearse all the arguments about the relative economic disadvantages of the remoter parts of the United Kingdom. But it is clear that in constituencies such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Western Isles, who may try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are economic disadvantages because of distance. Costs, especially of transport, are often higher. Surveys have shown that the two largest

towns in my constituency, Kirkwall and Lerwick, are among the 10 towns in the United Kingdom with the highest costs in the shops. We fear that an added burden will be imposed on us because of the increased Post Office charges, especially for Datapost.
The Datapost surcharge is on consignments to the Highlands and Islands. It does not include dispatches from the area or within the area. When the Post Office imposed the surcharges last year, it argued that they would almost invariably be borne by those sending the goods and would not be added to costs in the surcharged area. Shetland chamber of commerce responded that, to a large extent, the costs were being passed on and that it was, therefore, a further imposition.
The Post Office has given reasons for the surcharge, and mentioned specifically the need to be competitive in what I accept is a very competitive market. But it strikes me as odd to increase prices to be competitive.
This morning, the hon. Member for Western Isles and I met the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, and his senior colleagues who are most closely involved with the decision to increase the Datapost surcharge. We conveyed to them our worries about the impact of the surcharge on the business life of our communities and other communities throughout the Highlands. In response, they claimed that they at least provide a service, which cannot be said for all their competitors, and that is something for which we are grateful. They also claimed that, notwithstanding the surcharge, they provide a cheaper service. They accepted the point that if, as they claimed, their service is cheaper, more effective marketing of it would help to reduce unit costs.
The Post Office was able to give us some undertakings. Sir Bryan had said that he would have to think about matters before doing so, but the hon. Member for Western Isles and I are grateful to him for managing—perhaps in anticipation of this debate—to get a letter to us this evening. In it, he guarantees that, for at least three years commencing on 5 April next, no surcharge will be levied on Datapost items dispatched from surcharged areas to non-surcharged areas or within the existing surcharged area. Secondly, the level of surcharge, where applicable, will be no more than the existing 35 per cent. of standard Datapost prices. I am extremely grateful for those guarantees. It shows that our representations have had a positive outcome.
Unfortunately, those guarantees do not go all the way towards alleviating our worries about the imposition of a surcharge on goods sent by Datapost to our constituencies. We have asked the Post Office for costings and figures on the level of traffic but were given to understand that such data cannot be given out because it would breach commercial confidentiality. We were told, however, that the Post Office tries to charge a sum that gives it no greater profits on the service to the Highlands and Islands than to anywhere else. The Post Office admits that the surcharge is imposed because of its competitive pricing policy, but that the additional revenue that flows into its coffers from the surcharge has not been measured, and it could not tell us what proportion of overall turnover it constitutes.
No one would readily contradict our suspicion that only a modest amount is added to the turnover by this surcharge; it would be small in terms of the whole Datapost operation. However, it is a serious imposition on


retailers, and on farmers in my constituency who may have to order spare parts urgently and find the service useful for that. For them, this surcharge is a serious additional cost.
When we discuss the operations of nationalised industries in Adjournment debates, it is easy for Ministers to claim that it is not their responsibility to go into operational details. However, it was made perfectly clear to us by the Post Office that the Government set financial targets and it is asked by them to run a fully commercial operation. If it departed from that to take into account, as we hope it will, the special social and economic considerations involved in serving a community such as mine, it would need to be steered by the Government in that direction.
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration —even if not tonight—to allowing the Post Office some discretion in deciding whether the Datapost operation to areas such as my constituency should be run at the strictly commercial rate of return that it feels obliged to adhere to at present. That would be consistent with other Government policies.
For example, the rural sub-post office network cannot be said to be a great commercial success for the Post Office, but after many representations the Government accepted that there were social reasons for sustaining it. We agree with that; the Post Office can do that because of the backing it gets for it from the Government.
Similarly, the Government are on record as recognising the problems of areas such as the Highlands and Islands. The Highlands and Islands Development Board, itself an act of faith of Government policy, helps to redress some of our economic disadvantages. There is also Government support for trying to ensure that our area will not lose out in any reform of the EEC regional development fund. The Government recognise there is a special social and economic case for helping the Highlands and Islands, and accordingly it would be consistent with their policy to allow the Post Office to reduce the surcharge it has imposed.
I hope, too, that the Minister can assure us that the surcharge is not the thin end of the wedge. A number of my constituents have told me—not least those who are in business—that they fear that this is the start of a two-tier system which could spread throughout the postal service. That fear has been reinforced by the Post Office's decision, in introducing its new parcel Superservice, to create three zones—the Highlands and Islands again fall into the most expensive one.
In correspondence with the Shetland Islands council, Ian Barr, who was still then chairman of the Scottish Post Office Board, said that the zonal pricing had had to be implemented at the behest of the Government. I know that the Minister has denied that in correspondence with that council. What did pass between his Department and the Post Office about this? Did the Post Office need to put up a zonal pricing system to his Department in order to spobtain consent for capital expenditure?
We are not asking for cross-subsidisation between the different activities of the Post Office. However, even within the three zonal bands there must be cross-subsidisation between routes. There is surely a case for cross-subsidisation within the one service, so that areas where the Post Office can make high profits because costs are low help to subsidise the postal service and the Superservice in areas where, I admit, it is far more difficult to provide a service cheaply.
We fear that what is now happening will undermine the flat-rate pricing structure for letter post. The monopoly that the Post Office has in the letter service is something that we greatly value. We have been assured by the Post Office of its commitment to that monopoly and its wish to continue it within the letter service and to have a common tariff. It would be reassuring if the Minister would say that that is also the Government's policy. We fear that the licensing of even one competitor, as has happened with Mercury in the telephone service, could undermine that service if that competitor could provide a speedy service in city areas, which, in turn, would force the Post Office to make investments so that it could compete. Such investment in the urban areas would take away resources for funding a postal service in rural areas.
However much we may grouse, we recognise the valuable service that the Post Office provides to remote areas. We greatly value it. We do not want it to be lost or to become even more costly.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for allowing me to take part in this debate. He has comprehensively covered a number of points and I wish only to say a few words in support of his remarks, so that the Minister can give a complete answer to the points raised.
The hon. Gentleman and I saw the chairman of the Post Office this morning to discuss the introduction of the Datapost surcharge for the Highlands and Islands. We received a sensitive hearing and he gave us the commitment that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He made it clear that the ultimate responsibility for setting the guidelines for the Datapost service, within which the Post Office makes its decisions, rests with the Government. In applying commercial criteria to that service, the Post Office is following the Government's guidelines.
We are asking for a balance between the commercial criteria and the economic impact on the Highlands and Islands of the surcharge. A point made frequently during the past week has been the uneven economic development between north and south. During our Budget debates there have been frequent calls for Government action to redress that imbalance. It does not make economic sense and it is not socially healthy for the country. The Government appear reluctant to take the direct action needed to redress that imbalance. Even though they will not do so, we ask them to do nothing to encourage or reinforce it. We urge them to take greater stock of the economic considerations when giving guidelines to the Post Office for the Datapost service.
I should like to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the need for some figures to allow a proper assessment of the imbalance to be made. Apparently, the Post Office does not have the figures necessary to say how the added global values resulting from the surcharge compare with the overall turnover and profit of the Datapost service. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred o our suspicion that, compared with the overall turnover, the added contribution made by the surcharge is very small, but its impact on the Highlands and Islands is relatively much greater.
We call on the Minister to obtain some figures that will allow him to make a judgment. If purely commercial


criteria are to be applied to the Datapost service, there is a danger that those criteria will be extended to other postal services. The surcharge warns us what will happen if the privatisation plans for the Post Office, which have been mooted by some Conservative Members, come to fruition.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on the manner in which he has pursued this issue and the courtesies which he has observed in informing the House, and where appropriate me, of the progress which he has made. I am especially grateful for the updating that the hon. Gentleman gave me and my officials on the outcome of his discussions earlier today. The hon. Gentleman may have drawn some encouragement from some of the observations made during that meeting. If any questions remain unanswered, I shall observe the courtesies by writing to the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on any outstanding points.
I am pleased to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. He has forcefully expressed his worry about the Post Office's recent decision on surcharges on items sent to the islands and certain parts of the highlands using its Datapost services. Some of that concern may be misplaced. It must be clearly understood that these surcharges have nothing to do with the ordinary letter service. We make judgments about that service in terms of the social element, the national service to all parts of the country and the price at which it is provided.
The concern is over the Post Office's high-speed courier service, Datapost. Datapost, which is the responsibility of Royal Mail Parcels rather than Royal Mail Letters, is a competitive commercial service which is used mainly by business rather than by domestic customers. It is not covered by the statutory letter monopoly. It is in competition with the services of private couriers. Decisions about Datapost services and prices are for the Post Office to make in the light of commercial factors. It is not for the Government — these are the words that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was dreading — to make these decisions, nor is it for us to intervene in decisions which the Post Office has taken.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland briefly mentioned the recent resignation of the chairman of the Scottish Post Office board. I believe that this is not a matter on which it would now be appropriate for me to comment. I am aware that the circumstances of Mr. Barr's departure were well publicised in a high profile exchange between Mr. Barr and the Post Office. Appointments to the Scottish Post Office board are the responsibility of the Post Office, and the Government are not involved. The resignation of the chairman of the board is a matter for the Post Office and the individual concerned.

Mr. Macdonald: I wonder whether the Minister would clarify that point. He says that it is not for the Government to lay down guidelines for the Datapost service. Is that because the legislation says that they must not or because it is their policy not to?

Mr. Butcher: I hope to come to that point in a moment. There are overall considerations that the Government ask

the Post Office to bear in mind, particularly considering the distinction between the different kinds of services—for example, the universal letter service and the more specialist services in higher added-value areas where there is competition. It is right to make that distinction.
There was a clue in what was said by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Western Isles, who voiced veiled misgivings about the opacity of the accountancy practice. The Post Office would dearly love to have more and clearer data— that is accountancy information—service by service, on which to make more detailed management judgments. I suspect that the Post Office is determined to put that deficiency right. It is improving its management systems very effectively and, when all is said and done, it is one of the few postal services in western Europe—indeed, in the OECD countries—that are not just breaking even but making a small profit.
Therefore, my answer to the hon. Member for Western Isles is that the Government can indeed legitimately make observations on what he has called guidelines. What we do not do, however, is cut right down into individual tariffing policy. Another day, or perhaps in correspondence, we can examine the assertion of the gentleman who resigned in such a high profile manner and perhaps the Government's position, which may not entirely agree with the way in which the reported remarks were made.
In the time available to me I report that I asked questions parallel to the questions that the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Western Isles have asked about the pattern of traffic to the Scottish islands since last year's surcharge, since that may give us some clue about the effect of surcharges. We cannot judge the effect of the present surcharge, but since last year's surcharge traffic to the Scottish islands has been extremely buoyant. Traffic on the routes rose by 25 per cent. between April and July and by 50 per cent. between April and November. Even after taking into account the strong growth rates in Datapost generally, that suggests that adverse customer reaction was negligible and that the service remains highly competitive in terms of both price and reliability.
Traffic on other Post Office services to the islands has also grown steadily, although generally in line with the growth rates for the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, it would not be accurate to assert that thus far there is evidence of a deterioration in the general or business traffic.

Mr. Macdonald: That is is not the point.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not the point, but I think that I can legitimately put the figures before the House by way of background to the general question.
Like me, the hon. Gentleman will be anxious to discover that the business community, remote as it is, and with the other high costs that it may have to bear, is still vigorously using the growing services in the Post Office. Thus far, the evidence is that it is. Given that users within the remote areas do not pay the surcharge unless they are posting to an area of high surcharge—we are talking mainly about incoming sensitive, fast-reaction business mail—it would appear that those who do business with the hon. Gentleman's constituents on that basis have thus far not been deterred from expanding the traffic by using the Datapost service.
We look to the Post Office to act commercially and, where it operates in competitive markets, to compete


fairly. It has been a matter of long-standing policy that it is primarily for each nationalised industry to work out the details of its prices, while having regard to its markets and overall objectives, including financial targets set by the Government. That is part of the answer to the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman. Of course we look at external financing limits and it is that EFL, whether it is positive or negative, that drives the business plans of most of the nationalised industries where they are still reporting to the House on their performance set against those figures.
That general principle is subject to the policy that the industries should avoid arbitrary cross-subsidisation between different groups of consumers. The Post Office, like other nationalised industries, should seek to ensure that its prices are sensibly related to the costs of supply and the market situation. I should add, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will probably be vividly and personally aware, that none of that policy is new. It was set out in the 1978 White Paper on nationalised industries, which was produced, almost by way of a valedictory effort, by the previous Labour Administration.
That does not mean that the Post Office should set a different price for each and every item or customer, calculated on the basis of the particular costs involved each time. That would be neither practicable nor sensible. However, it does mean that in determining prices for a service such as Datapost —-or the Superservice business parcels service to which reference has been made —

where there are readily identifiable differences in supplying the service to different groups of customers, the Post Office should aim to reflect this in the prices charged. I hope that the hon. Members can decode that paragraph when looking at Hansard tomorrow and get close to the answer to the question that they both raised.
The Post Office must also take account of the market conditions. That means that it must have regard to the pricing structures of its competitors. It does not mean that it should simply charge what its competitors charge. The Post Office's prices should reflect the level and structure of its own costs and, for many reasons, those might be very different from those of its competitors. In fact, there is evidence that Datapost is competing successfully in that market segment.
The two hon. Gentlemen did not go on to voice concern about the implications for postal services generally in the highlands and islands. However, I suspect that they are each aware of the fact that the general postal service is looked at in a different light and that the universal service is still the prevalent consideration.
Therefore, the Post Office has not turned its back on its proud tradition of public service and commercialism and public service—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.